User:Ashleighann24/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
In support of IT-797 - Advanced Topics in Cybersecurity - Cybersecurity Policy, I chose Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency for my Wiki article evaluation. CISA was tagged in the White House's National Cyber Workforce and Education Strategy of July 31, 2023 as one of the primary offices of responsibility for implementation of several lines of effort. As CISA plays a major role in the implementation of this national cybersecurity policy document, a policy that also aligns to the cybersecurity workforce (my dissertation subject), I felt it was a good choice for this week's assignment.

Lead section
The lead section of this article does offer an introductory sentence describing the agency and it's primary mission set. The lead section also includes more information than necessary. Some information presented in the lead section is repeated later in the article, some is not and should have been. The following items are of note:


 * The lead section does present an overview of the the organization and it's mission. It also includes information beyond this scope.
 * The lead section does not identify or discuss the article's major sections.
 * The lead section introduces information not discussed later in the article. For example, the lead section identifies the location of the agency's headquarters and plans to move the agency to the DHS St. Elizabeth's campus. This should have been discussed with greater detail in another section, perhaps the "History" section. A second example is the mention of involvement in 5G network security and the hardening of the US grid against electromagnetic pulses. If these initiatives were important enough to mention in the lead section, they should have been mentioned under "Performance" or "Major Programs".
 * Wording in the lead is not concise. The author states that CISAs footprint grew as a result of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency act of 2018 to include U.S. response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which occurred almost two years later.

Content
I do not feel the article covers all important aspects of the topic, while some information provided little to no value.


 * The content of the article is not up to date. For example, under the "Committees" heading, the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee members are current as of 2021. Per CISAs website, many of the members identified in this article are no longer serving on the committee. The "Directors" section, however, is up to date.
 * The "Performance" section lacks context and applicability. There was only mention to a recent strategic plan, a quote from the current Agency Director, and a mention of the release of a 2021 CISA article. None of these one sentence paragraphs had any context or relevance to the subject section.
 * There's an "Organization" Section that identifies agency divisions and subdivisions, but the article does not provide any details beyond that. Without context, this section provides little to no value to the article.
 * Under "Major Programs" there should be a reference to the support to be provided by CISA in the implementation of the 2023 National Strategies.
 * The "Committees" section has no context. The author makes mention to the creation of the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee and it's members (which is outdated), but does not delve into what the committee was actually charged to do. Mention of this committee and it's mission/initiatives could have been included in another section outlining the agencies most notable initiatives.

Tone and Balance
This Wiki article was written from a neutral point of view. I wasn't able to find any controversial, fringe, or biased claims or viewpoints within. Additionally, there were no attempts at persuasion.

Sources and References
The sources are thorough, timely, and diverse. There are not a significant number of references to peer reviewed articles, however, due to the subject being a government agency, it's reasonable to assume the majority of information would be found on official government websites.


 * Not all facts in the article are backed by a reliable secondary source. For example, the article identifies a $2.9 billion budget for 2023, however, no source is cited for this information. I was able to validate this information via ProQuest. There are multiple examples of data without sources throughout.
 * If the article were to go into greater detail regarding agency initiatives, the author would have been able to find ample information via peer reviewed sources.
 * There are several direct quotes within the article.
 * The links appear to work properly within the article.

Organization and writing quality
Improvements could be made to the organization and quality of writing within this article.


 * The article isn't concise, there's a lack of transition between sentences and sections which negatively impacts flow and readability.
 * I did not find any grammatical or spelling errors during my review.
 * Overall, the article is not well organized. The major sections include "History", "Performance", "Organization", "Major Programs", "Committees", and "Directors". There's no logical flow between these sections. A better structure may be "Background", "Organizational Structure", and "Major Initiatives". This would also allow the author to delve more deeply into the mission sets of the different sub agencies, as well as the agency's major initiatives and their impact.
 * There's no use of sub sections, the author only casually mentions the different "Major programs" in paragraphs or one liners.
 * Items within some of sections are not in chronological order. Under the "Performance" Section, the author begins discussing CISAs 2023-2025 strategic plan, then later on in the article discusses a "recent" report form 2021.

Images and Media
The use of images could use revision, as images don't appear in any logical order or location within the article. One image is not even referenced within the body of the article.
 * Placement of images is somewhat half hazard. An image of a CISA publication appears in the "Organization" section, which seems to be unrelated to the section's content. The publication is not mentioned anywhere else within the article.
 * Images do not link to a source, though all are captioned.

Talk page discussion
This article is a supported course assignment for the Wiki Education Foundation. It falls within the WikiProject United States scope, is rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, and is graded as low importance on the project's importance scale. There were only two discussions on the Talk page for this article:


 * There was an agreement to merge the CISA article with the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) article. NPDD is the agency replaced by CISA.
 * A second thread pointed out inconsistent dates. This was ultimately clarified and revised within the article.

Overall impressions
The article is valuable as a starting point, but lacks important details. In my opinion, the article is underdeveloped and missing Key points and context, Certain details present seem unnecessary and fail to add value to the article.

Strengths

 * The article has ample references which appear to be linked properly. There are no noted issues with tone an balance. The article offers good background information on the history of the organization, and provides accurate demographics.

Improvements

 * I recommend a re-organization of sections as discussed above.
 * More and up to date details should be added discussing the agency's major initiatives.
 * Committee member names could be removed as they require frequent updating. More pertinent information regarding committee responsibilities or achievements could be added.
 * All facts should be reviewed and pointed to a reference and direct quotes should be paraphrased.
 * Images not referenced within the body of the article should be removed or
 * More robust peer-reviewed sources should be leveraged.