User:Dgorny3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Computer security conference)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose the article on hacker conventions, specifically the computer security conference because it reminded me of the topics we discussed in class. We have discussed throughout the semester ways to keep your several types of identities safe. In addition, we have read articles about conventions where they will hack into voting machines to test its security. Therefore, I found this topic to be relevant to the course and extremely interesting. This topic matters because of our own security. Technology's impact is constantly growing, these conventions are important because they test the security of computers, which contain a good amount of our personal data. My preliminary impression of it was that it was a strong article on Wikipedia.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead's introductory sentence is concise and clear, and there is a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not contain information that is not present in the article. The article includes information relevant to the topic. However, in the Talk page, someone noted that some of the conventions listed are fake. Someone else in the Talk page pointed out that some content is missing, such as how long these conventions are. In addition, I think the portion on hacker conferences after the computer security conferences section should be a separate article. This article remains neutral, and it discusses many computer security and hacker conferences. I think that all the facts are not backed up by a secondary source. The list of different computer security conferences and hacker conferences are backed up by a secondary source, but most of the sentences do not have links to their sources. Most of the sources are from around 2013 which is almost ten years ago. Therefore, they may be outdated. Some of the sources are conferences' websites; therefore, they may be biased to promote their conference. I think it would be beneficial to include more current and peer-reviewed sources. There are no grammatical errors, and the article is easy to read and understand. The article includes images to enhance it, but they are small, so it is a little difficult to see. I think they are laid out nicely, but they could be slightly larger. The pictures are well-captioned. The conversations behind the scenes are about modifying the external links, making sure the information is not outdated, and including more information on the topic. This article is rated as Start-Class, and it is a part of a WikiProject Computing. Wikipedia does not include many benefits of these conferences, which are different from in class. However, this is good for a Wikipedia article because it is meant to stay completely neutral. I think this article is well-developed, but it could be improved by including more current sources. The article's strengths include the list of real conferences because it gives the reader an opportunity to look at specific conferences.