User:AnimusCrypta/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: Internet backbone
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
 * This page is a bit out of date and I think it would benefit from some rewriting and addition of new sources. I also find it interesting to consider that there is a massive, cyber-infrastructure that exists as a result of the physical infrastructure of the internet and would like to know more.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it could use some rewording to sound clearer.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Sort of, it touches on some topics, like infrastructure, but there are others that don't seem to be mentioned, such as Regional Backbones.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, there is a mention of "privately negotiated interconnection agreements" but no examples are listed/explained in the article itself.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Seems concise, no superfluous language.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not all of it, there is a mention in the talk page about this very issue.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Mentions of Tier 1 ISPs seem to be unwarranted according to the talk page due to the fact that they supposedly do not exist anymore. Wikipedians are calling for a change or removal here,

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Mostly yes, but the "Modern Backbone" section requires a rewrite or augmentation to make it more neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Again, the "Modern Backbone" section only mentions U.S. ISPs, I'm sure others from other regions of the world should be mentioned.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Once again, the "Modern Backbone" section overrepresents the U.S. ISPs, thus underrepresenting other ISPs from other regions in the world.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Mostly yes, save for one instance beneath the "Infrastructure" section that requires a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, most sources are within the related fields.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are, but most of the sources should be refreshed if possible, with many being from between the years 2002 and 2011.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The lead is a bit confusing, but still concise. The rest is easy to read, could perhaps benefit from additional information.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, but very minor issues.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections themselves seem organized enough, and there seems to be room to add a few more to provide more clarity on things like "Regional Backbones".

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Mostly those surrounding timeliness of sources, depth of content, and the previous removal of a lot of bad sections and links. It seems that people want Internet Backbones to be represented more clearly and comprehensively than it currently is.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated C-Class as a part of the Internet WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The only difference is in the information being requested. There needs to be more said about Internet Backbones, while we may have covered it in class more in depth. Wikipedians will be pleased once in class knowledge is brought into the article for consideration.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Edits have been inactive since 2017, but is still rated with high-importance on the Internet project scale. Some in the talk page argue that it should be reclassified as a start rather than an entire C-Class article, but no one has done anything to challenge either of these classifications since.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The topic is notable and has a good framework of information to build off of.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information and more timely sources are required to flesh out the framework it currently has.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is currently underdeveloped, with plenty of room for improvement.

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: