User:Ballord0/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Computer-supported cooperative work

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am taking a course on CSCW at Chapman. This article covers various topics within CSCW, but there are additional concepts that would be useful to include in the article.

Evaluate the article
1. Lead

Guiding questions:

· Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Based on the edits made in class to the lead section, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise but clearly defines the subject.

· Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Wikipedia provides a table of contents that exactly matches the layout of the article. However, the lead section does not clearly define these sections in writing. This section reads more like a somewhat disorganized paragraph with various, unrelated facts about the field of CSCW.

· Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead section mentions how the COVID-19 pandemic has affected workplace communication and collaboration, as well as how businesses today are minimizing economic losses as a result of the pandemic. This information borders irrelevance in the way that it is currently written and is not addressed later in the article.

· Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead section is overly detailed and lengthy. Rather than including facts in the lead section, I would consider moving most of this writing into different subsections of the article that I applies to.

2. Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

· Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content covers key concepts of the CSCW field, but could be further refined. There are some sections such as 'Gaming' and 'Conferences' that may not have enough information in their own section to be relevant, or have too much information and could be more useful as its own article. Some important concepts of CSCW are also missing from the article (e.g. boundary objects).

· Is the content up-to-date?

Yes, the writing in the article pertains to current events like COVID-19. The references for information in the article cite writing as recent as 2021.

· Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Sections like 'Conferences' and 'Gaming' may not be relevant to the article. Information on conferences could be summarized in few sentences and does not need to be its own sections. The 'Gaming' section might be too specific - if the article is going to specify CSCW in one industry, it should cover more industries or none of them for the sake of generalization and conciseness.

· Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The article has a section on gender inequality in the field and getting more women into CSCW, but it does not largely address other minorities or social inequities pertaining to CSCW.

3. Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

· Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral. All information is written in a factual tone and there are no instances of personal pronouns or opinionated wording. Even the section on challenges remains neutral and does not criticize CSCW setbacks in an opinionated way.

· Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article relies heavily on factual statements, so bias is not present.

· Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No viewpoints are over- or underrepresented, however some key concepts and areas of study within CSCW are missing from the article, putting forth the incorrect idea that some concepts are more important than others.

· Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, there is no persuasive tone in the article.

4. Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions

· Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.

Most sentences in each section are linked to a credible source, and there is an extensive reference list at the end of the article. However, the talk page notes that some citations need fixing.

· Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The sources included in the reference section cover a wide array of topics related to CSCW - reflected in the diverse topics covered in the article.

· Are the sources current?

.. A large portion are from 2015 to present. Yes, the majority of sources are from the 21st century.

· Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

In terms of gender there is a lot of coverage in the sources used. However, more could be done to include other individuals in marginalized communities in the sources.

· Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

5. Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions

· Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article (beyond the cluttered Lead section) is well organized into distinct sections. However, the writing can get lengthy in each section and subtract from the conciseness and ease of reading.

· Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Some headings could have improved capitalization, but the content does not appear to have noticeable grammatical errors.

· Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is organized well. While each section is distinct and unique, there are some sections that are not major concepts in CSCW and could be replaced with more relevant information.

6. Organization evaluation

Images and Media

Guiding questions

· Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

There is one image showing the time/space groupware matrix. This helps visualize this subject but does not pertain to any other subject.

· Are images well-captioned?

The caption is vague. It just says "CSCW Matrix" with no context.

· Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

There is no source attached to the image.

· Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Yes. The image is distinct from the text and is placed in a relevant area.

Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

· What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

that are not yet in the article.There are notes in the Talk page to rewrite sections and potential topics to cover

· How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The project is considered an 'article of interest' for WikiProjects relating to Business, Internet, Computing, and HCI. It is rated as a Start-class article.

· How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

We have not discussed topics of ubiquitous computing and ideas of self-presentation and affordance involved in interaction design. The article goes into detail about gaming, which is another topic we have not covered as extensively in class.

Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

· What is the article's overall status?

The article has an acceptable amount of information to make it useful in learning about CSCW but could be further refined to make it more readable and an approachable piece of writing. Conciseness can be improved upon.

· What are the article's strengths?

The article is well-organized and contains a lot of neutral, factual information.

· How can the article be improved?

It could cover more key concepts as opposed to specific applications of CSCW (what is the importance of including a section on gaming as opposed to business?) and can be less cluttered with information.

· How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article is developed in the sense that it has good structure and credible information. It could use more relevant and generalized information.

Overall evaluation (and what will you address in your edits?)

The article includes very in-depth coverage on different subjects of CSCW, but is still missing writing on key concepts. It includes topics that do not necessarily pertain to the subject and do not serve the overall purpose of the article.

In my edits I would address the super specific sections and consider removing them for the sake of including more on key concepts that were missed in this version of the article.