User:Ctb91/Evaluate an Article


 * 1) First, identify which article you read. Then answer the Evaluating content questions: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? Is there anything that you think should be added to the topic? I read the article, Voice Analysis. I found the first subsection, Typical Voice Problems, to be distracting and a confusing beginning. I think the subsection heading should have been phoniatrics with subsections within that of how voice analysis can be used for medical use in detecting voice problems. I think there should be alot added to this topic. I think especially the forensic aspect of voice analysis can be expanded upon. Having a section where cases have been impacted by voice analysis, the article mentioned the Trayvon Martin case, but there are probably a bunch of other cases. Also expanding upon how it is used in court like for witness identification of a suspect or even go into detail of the reference the article made in the beginning about the controversial detecting to truth from voice analysis, etc.
 * 2) Evaluating tone: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article was neutral it did not make any strong claims that showed bias.
 * 3) Evaluating sources: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article? Does the source support the claims in the article? I checked the third citation for voice identification and I could not find anything about voice identification in the article about Voice Analysis. The information may have been used when discussing voice problems, but where it was cited it was not being referenced. However, the Trayvon Martin citation seemed to work and was paraphrased. One of the citations doesn't have a link to anything, "Hapner, Edie; Stemple, Joseph (2014). Voice Therapy: Clinical Case Studies. Plural Publishing." I didn't see any sign of plagiarizing from the few links I checked out.
 * 4) Evaluating sources (continued): Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? I noticed not all the sources are properly references and completely neutral. In the introduction it says, "More controversially, some believe that the truthfulness or emotional state of speakers can be determined using voice stress analysis or layered voice analysis." There should be a reference instead of just "some believe." Who believes? Furthermore, there are alot of citation needed inserts throughout the article indicating that there is a lot of information unaccounted for. There are only 6 references for an entire page of information.  The other sources seem to be from reliable, neutral sources like journals or even our textbook "Speaking of Crime."
 * 5) Checking the talk page: What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Behind the scenes there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the topic. The only thing written in the talk section is "i want to mke my vocal sond sweet?" which I do not think warrants a discussion. We have not yet discussed voice analysis, but I assume we will be delving into the forensic voice recognition techniques. The article does discuss the forensic use of voice analysis, but I don't think it is covered to the degree it should be.