User:Chefhare/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cryptocurrency and crime

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the subject of Cryptocurrencies and regulation is an interest to me. In particular, the regulation currently in place and future potential regulatory changes to come.

This matters to me because I believe regulation can become too restrictive if not done correctly. My initial impression of the article was that it was informative but could use some improvements.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section of the article was insightful and interesting. The section was succinct with a high-level overview of what the article is talking about. However, I would have liked it to have been a little more detailed about what the reader should expect from the article.

Content

The content was good, however, could be better. The article started with how the IRS views the value of digital currencies. It gave a background on how it's transferred as well as the regulatory powers of Congress. Additionally, they talked about tact implementations of different acts such as the electronics funds act and other regulations. While also getting into some of the nefarious or illegal activities that are used to launder virtual currencies. One thing here I think could make the article better would be to talk about some of the ways Congress is looking to regulate virtual currencies. While not 100% certain, one thing we can be sure is regulation is on the way.

Evaluation of Tone and Balance

The tone was good. The article seemed to strike a balance of not being too bearish on virtual currencies and too bullish on virtual currencies. Oftentimes it is my opinion that when reading articles, they've seemed to sway one way or the other. This one seems to strike the perfect balance of being down the center while giving the reader the benefits of virtual currencies and some of the nefarious usages.

Evaluation of Sources and References

In my observation, it seemed like the references came from reputable sources it didn't appear that there is proprietary research being cited. However, there were some improvements to be made. One such improvement would be around the court cases being cited. For some reason, they’re not showing up as links on the references page. You can see court  case numbers however links to articles or documents for the cases aren't coming through.

Evaluation of Organization and Writing Quality

Regarding the organization of the article. In my opinion it is easy to follow and show the progression from the definition of what are virtual currencies and how the IRS is looking to regulate to how virtual currencies could be used for malicious purposes. Each section had information that was referenced by reputable sources. These reputable sources included court orders to the federal government's case law. However, the content was a little wordy at times.

Overall Impressions

Overall I thought the article was good, however, there are some improvements that can be made to make it better. In addition to what I mentioned previously, one thing that I would add would be the acronym VC. Considering that cryptocurrencies or virtual currencies is a part of the financial ecosystem. VCs could mean a multitude of things. The main dominant acronym VC normally stands for venture capitalist. When reading the article, I had to remind myself that VCs were not venture capitalists in this particular aspect but were for the name virtual currencies.

Chefhare (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)