User:CosmicMasquerade-2000/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Activity tracker

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a topic of interest given how fast technology is changing and being integrated into monitoring health and utilized by health professionals. This article has a lot of information on the history, development, and multiple purposes of these devices and there are many uses for it that can be mentioned or expressed in detail in this article. There are multiple ways that these tracking devices work and having a look at resources that talk about studies involving new methods will be helpful to cover. I believe that there are new resources to uncover regarding this field, which will allow one to analyze how effective activity and health tracking can be in certain practices.

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 is clear and detailed in the purpose of an activity tracker, though I feel that this sentence and paragraph are too focused on the fitness aspect of an activity tracker. The article later briefly talks about other uses for activity tracking such as for sleep, reproductive care, and detecting illness in the elderly. It is recommended to make it more general in the beginning to cover most of the potential uses.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Given that fitness is the main focus, the article does cover this main point along with vital health elements. It also talks about the different types of technology involved, such as the devices and applications.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, all the information is covered in the content section.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is detailed but can use a bit more general terms and phrases to make it less packed with terms.

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?
 * Yes, the content consists of activity-tracking technology and methods.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * This article's information has the most recent sources from 2020 and everything else is from the late 2000s to early-middle 2010s, it could use a few sources from the last few years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that the performance section can either be renamed or merged with another section because it simply talks about how the devices are worn and how they are connected. It mentions only one line on the harmful, toxic effects of the devices which can use some elaboration.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, this is a general article about the overall uses for activity tracking and the outcomes.

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?
 * Tone is neutral, mainly focuses on fitness uses for the activity tracker so it can use some more perspective on the other uses for different groups of people and activities.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Everything seems neutral and features perspectives from both the concerns and positive aspects.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints regarding being used for fitness along with the description of them being wristbands or watches seem repetitive.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Viewpoints from different perspectives such as different types of users, companies, and clinicians.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article seems more descriptive in listing the different uses for activity tracking and the stakeholders involved, I think it is being persuasive in expressing how versatile it is.

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?
 * Yes, most are defined and have a citation
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, a good range is present
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most current seems to be from 2020, most info comes from the early-late 2010s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are various authors involved in the sources.
 * 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.)
 * There are one or two sources that lead to pages with "404 not found" errors. There are a couple of peer-reviewed articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * As mentioned before, most of the links except for some, where the pages will lead to "page not found" notices.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, 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 is well-written and detailed but I feel that it is very dense and packs a lot of information into one section, for example, the history section features a lot of information that is helpful to know but will feature random facts from different places such as how activity trackers are also used for dogs, this should be in a different section or not mentioned at all.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The grammar and spelling are fine, I do think some sentences can be broken up or rearranged to make the article more organized and less dense.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I feel like lengthy and dense sections like history can be broken up into more subcategories to separate the subjects regarding athletics, use for health, and the types of technologies to make it more organized.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has only 2 images that express how the tracker can be used as a wristband and on phones.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they are clear and straight to the point.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images have the copyright permission status listed underneath when it is clicked on.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are laid out in a standard way, more can be placed in the sections below.

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?
 * One of the conversations I saw talked about how a lot of the terminology seems too "market-like" and that particular devices were not necessary to add to the article. There is a lot of talk about what the author pulled from their resources and their reasoning behind it.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated a Start-class in the content assessment scale and a low-class on the project importance scale. It is part of the WikiProjects Health and Fitness collection.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It talks more about the technical features of the product than the medical uses, as in it talks more about the different types of technologies over how it is used.

Overall impressions

 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Contains a slot of detailed information that covers many technical elements and the practices they are used in.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Better organization and separation of information to make it easier to follow along with balancing with the technological side and medical information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Well developed but requires better organization and clarity to follow and balance in information.

Dr C's comments
Great assessment of this article! I think your point about persuasion and focusing on the positive aspects of these trackers is a really interesting one.

It looks like you've identified several areas for improvement, including: (1) Editing the lead introduction section so it has less jargon and is clearer (2) add some more recent citations (3) remove broken links and replace with current citations (4) edit some of the text for density/organization, perhaps especially in the "performance" section. We can talk about prioritizing and choosing which of these areas to focus on in class on Thursday, but I think you've got some great material to work with here.