User:Breadyornot/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: Information privacy / Search engine privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This article was selected by my course.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes. / Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. / For the most part, any more information would have seemed clunky.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No. / No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, could prove to have more information listed about the other contents of the article. / Concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. / Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Seems as if the last law/policy mentioned was in 2008 with the last major edit completed on November 2019, could prove to be reexamined for any new updates/articles posted on information privacy issues. / I believe this page could use some updating considering the last relevant update was when it was first created in 2018. Search engine's continue to evolve quickly each year, so new technologies could be written about as of now.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Since the creation of social media platforms and streaming services, etc, it would be beneficial to add this under the "Information types" section. / No content that is missing, however I do believe new information could be missing since search engine technologies develop quickly.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. / Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No./ No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The sections seem even compared to one another. / The section "User perceptions of privacy," could use greater information to match the content given in other sections.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * At times, the article does use the word "should" complete something... seems biased rather than just stating a neutral view point. / No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Several sections do not have citations listed, need to be more evenly cited throughout. / Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes. / No, it seems that a new area of privacy research has been completed in the time the article was created.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes. / Yes, but could be updates based on some new research that has come out in the past few years.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes. / Yes, but there are only a few links listed in the resource section.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes. / Yes.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No. / No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. / Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No. / No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A. / N/A.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A. / N/A.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A. / N/A.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * A debate between whether the page should be changed to "informational privacy," since most journals describe it this way, however, most google searches involve individuals looking up "information privacy" /No conversations, a couple peer reviews live there from when the article was first hosted.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-class. /The article has not been rated, but is a part of both the WikiProject Internet and WikiProject Mass Surveillance. I left a new section within both of the talk sections for these projects suggesting this page be rated in terms of importance and quality soon.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Very similar, but this overview is extremely generalized considering the plethora of different forms of technologies related to information privacy. /They are very similar, perhaps this Wikipedia page is a bit more neutral than a classroom style environment.
 * Very similar, but this overview is extremely generalized considering the plethora of different forms of technologies related to information privacy. /They are very similar, perhaps this Wikipedia page is a bit more neutral than a classroom style environment.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * High Importance/ No status assigned.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths include a wide array of independent references about information or informational privacy, clear break down by topic, and a plethora of links and hyperlinks. / The article's strengths include provided a ton of relevant case studies and examples of search engines.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Could use a brief overview explaining each heading for the headings with links to laws, needs to be updated/revised based on new information, could use greater for each of the headings under "information types." /The article could be improved by updating it with information compiled from the past few years and expanding "User perceptions of privacy."
 * 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 well-developed but needs greater information under each heading. / Well-developed.

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: Talk:Information privacy / Talk:Search engine privacy