User:Chrichang/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I'm evaluating Computer-supported cooperative work.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm currently taking a class on Computer-supported cooperative work which has us edit this article, and the information learned while taking this class could potentially allow me to make useful modifications to the article.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead's introductory sentence begins with a concise description of CSCW.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead doesn't include brief descriptions of several of the article's sections, such as the CSCW matrix, ubiquitous computing, the social-technical gap, and gaming.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * The lead does include information that is not present in the article, as it describes the Audio/Video Conference Module (AVM), which is not present in the rest of the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead seems overly detailed, possibly due to the second paragraph, which is not focused on a single idea. Specifically, it begins with a general overview of CSCW, but then provides several details on the COVID-19 pandemic and how CSCW relates to it.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All of the article's content is relevant to the topic of CSCW, but the sheer quantity of sections clutters up the entire page. It may be worth putting some of the sections into their own pages, if there's enough reliable information on them.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content seems to be largely up-to-date, as both foundational and recent research is cited.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As mentioned previously, it's possible that the relatively specific sub-topic of CSCW in gaming could be moved to its own page, as it has a fair amount of information but doesn't seem to be massively influential in the overall field of CSCW.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does have a section on Gender and CSCW, which has a subsection on "Increasing female participation."

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is largely neutral, as it does not seem to cover any particularly controversial topics.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None of the claims appear particularly biased, though I may not have enough knowledge of CSCW to know for sure.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As mentioned previously, having an entire section regarding CSCW in gaming may make it seem overly prominent in the field. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that the article is omitting opposing viewpoints about this topic, just that it may be better to move it to its own page or make it a subsection.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * From what I can tell, no obvious minority or fringe viewpoints are listed at all. However, it's worth keeping this in mind, as later edits may end up introducing minority or fringe viewpoints which should be described as such.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not seem to persuade the reader in favor of any one view.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Nothing is marked with the "citation needed" tag, and the cited sources are almost entirely peer-reviewed, academic articles. Thus, the facts in the article are probably backed up by reliable sources, though it could be worth checking some of the academic articles to verify that they are used as primary sources. Apparently, a scientific paper can contain both primary and secondary source material.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources cover some major ideas to the field like the CSCW matrix, articulation work, and ubiquitous computing, but I might not be aware of other important subjects from the literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The "Further reading" section has a list of 47 highly-cited papers, but this list is from 2006 and thus may not be sufficiently current. The sources which are cited in the article are from various periods of time, some of which date back to the 1980s. However, these articles seem to be cited for findings which are still relevant.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * As mentioned earlier, most of the sources are academic, peer-reviewed articles. At the very least, these articles are not drawn from the same, small set of authors. In terms of historically marginalized individuals, some of the authors are women.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Since most of the sources are peer-reviewed articles, they seem to be high quality.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked various links to other Wikipedia pages and a few of the links used in the "References" section. They work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article may be less concise than it could be, as a number of cited papers are described in more detail than necessary. Though it's important to base our facts on reliable sources, this relative verbosity makes it more difficult to quickly understand the main points of the relevant research.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Based on a quick scan of the article, there are no obvious grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article seems to be poorly organized. It contains a large number of sections, and they often fail to concisely present their main ideas in an obvious leading sentence.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article contains a single image: an example of the CSCW matrix. This definitely enhances understanding of what the CSCW matrix is (and why it's even called a matrix).
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The CSCW matrix is captioned as "the CSCW matrix," which is both succinct and successfully establishes its relevance to the article. According to English Wikipedia's manual of style, these are two of the criteria for a good caption. However, this caption may be a little obvious for the image, which would make it a worse caption. That said, no other caption is obviously superior to me.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The CSCW matrix image is available on Wikimedia Commons (and has been there since 2007). According to the "Structured data" tab in its Wikimedia Commons page, this image was released into the public domain by its copyright holder, allowing it to be used for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is placed to the right of the text in the "Matrix" section, which is fairly visually appealing.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The talk page has a to-do list near its beginning, which contains a number of still-relevant tasks. For example, it suggests mentioning that CSCW is related to human-computer interaction. This task still has not been done.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated "Start-class," and it is part of WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Business.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Since the talk page is relatively sparse and largely inactive, the comments are far more sporadic and less relevant to each other than our in-class discussions, where we frequently bounce ideas directly off each other.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article has a large number of seemingly reliable sources, but it's poorly organized overall, especially in its lead section.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article touches on a number of important CSCW concepts, like articulation work and the CSCW matrix. Other contributors have found relevant research and written down useful information regarding these topics, even if they're sometimes a little verbose.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * We can improve the article by making the writing more concise and reorganizing the sections to match ideas presented in the lead. Also, moving overly specific parts from the lead section to their own sections (or even their own pages) could help, as well as possibly adding a history section.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is poorly developed overall, lacking good organization and being a little verbose.