User:BoPro774/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.


 * Software patent debate: Software patent debate
 * I am a great fan of software development and am majoring in computer science, I believe that software and the ability to patent it holds both ups and downs and would like improve upon the information already existent here.

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 sound in its introduction to the topic of the article, however it lacks strength in the assertion of the articles major sections, and seems to jump straight towards the information its related to. The lead does not include information not further described later in the article, it is merely to brief and even abridged. The lead is concise in a manner by which it describes the bare-bones of the topic and fails to introduce key talking points, overall it functions as it should.

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

Content evaluation
The content is relevant and sound in relation towards the topic of software patenting as a legal discussion, it is also up to date on the legal discourses and court cases pertaining towards the place of software patents in not only the law but in society as well. Some content such as Trivial Patents and the Hardware Patents analogy are not useful in discussing software patenting and seem to distract from the topic at hand. However, due to the lack of current acclaim towards the debate of software patenting, it is an underrepresented topic that is not often analyzed in society. Whether this is due to a lack of precedence or the fact that while technology is a key factor in todays social climate, many who use it are unaware of software and the activity taken to develop it. The article does well in analyzing and portraying the court cases involved in determining these factors, though as a debate, it is lacking in addressing some key claims.

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 does seem to maintain a neutral position until it lists the pros and cons of software patenting, where it seems to undermine many of the pro-patent arguments while seemingly holding the anti-patent arguments to be of stronger content. Yet as the article is updated the tone of the article becomes slightly warped entirely, not exactly neutral but not so strongly advocating either specific trend. As a result the article's analysis is weakened by the lack of neutral ambivalence pertaining to the debate itself.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It would appear that most if not all the the information is supported by factual evidence and real-time sources, must of which are further fortified by more existing sources. All sources portray the topic of software patenting and its benefits or lack there of, yet some of them are outdated in terms of current trending for software patents. Many of the sources are cited from economic standpoints, while this may not be an entirely diverse activity, each does support the arguments presented in the article itself. All sources are operational and, perhaps more importantly, safe.

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, while concise, is in many parts, extremely brief: this results in a weak discovery of the topic and can be seen to effect the durability of the debate itself. There are no grammatical miscommunications in the text and it is written soundly, if again, very brief. The individual components of the article or broken down logically and do employ a strategy that is understandable and easy to read.

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
The article does not include any images or representations of the topic discussion, as a result of this, the content itself is at times drawl.

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
The talk page is full of useful information and debates on the efficacy of the article as well as data and arguments that could be used to benefit the ideal of the article. The article is rated a c-class essay that falls under the scope of both the WikiProjects of Software and Law. The Wikipedians discuss the article as a means of improving it as well as the necessity of understanding the concepts employed within it. In class, our discussion fall under how science and law interact and reform each other; software patents as a legal and societal debate are followed in the talk page as existent in a global scale.

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 status of the article, and its impression upon the reader is, while inquisitive, lacks a necessary distinction that ties it to a judicial legality as well as an implication towards how economic culture actively redefines the value of software patentability. It is strong in citing the legal allegations and court cases that impact the topic as something existent in law, however fails to ultimately realize this scale outside of the US. Furthermore, some arguments implemented in the article fail to be entirely supported by outside sources and citations. With an update in the legal cases of the definition of software as well as a broader scope into software patentability on a national level, the article could improve upon many of its weaker points. As it is an article on the controversial nature of software patenting, real-world allegations would go miles in determining how software law would be emphasized, how copyright and patenting work adversely and compatibly. Overall the article lacks a necessary feeling of completeness and development, but does work to introduce the debate of software patenting on a deliberative level.

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: