User:Andrew.willman/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: DHS Cyber Security Division
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate the DHS Cyber Security Division as it is directly associated with my major. However, I truly decided on this article as there is no (very little) information on it yet since it is a "low priority" for the WikiProject Computer Security members to assist in filling out.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is short and to the point, giving a brief overview of the Cyber Security Division by stating that it is a division of the DHS Science and Technology Directorate.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I believe the content vaguely represents the topic, where a bit more information could/should be added. Content that is missing would be the Cyber Security Division's mission, Partnerships, and role within cyber security.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is completely neutral, as there is only a couple definitions and a single external link.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There are a good amount of other wiki links within the paragraph, and a single external link, however I believe there could more sources to further explain the DHS Cyber Security Division.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written with no grammatical or spelling errors and is only broken in two sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There currently is no media besides the Agency overview.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. The article has also been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. There is no current conversation about the article at this time (besides my initial talk post).

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The articles overall status is relatively poor as there is a lack of information, however the information it does has is very informative. The article can be improved by filling in some of the gaps of information, thus I would rate the article as underdeveloped.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Security