User:Eddyd101/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Information Privacy (link)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it was assigned as a task by the leadership team of the Privacy Literacy Project. The goal is for me to gain proficiency in evaluating Wikipedia articles by using this article, and an additional article, as practice.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

I found the introductory sentence to be a bit odd in its phrasing. It took me a few reads to pinpoint what about the sentence bothered me and I think it is the lack of parallelism created by the missing article in front of legal. I edited the article to add the word "the" and hopefully make the sentence slightly clearer.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The Lead mentions that multiple fields use software and hardware to resolve the challenge of protecting personal information while allowing for the utilization of data. There is no discussion of software or hardware that can protect personal data though there is some discussion of habits that can such as the use of mix networks.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

The article's content is relevant to the topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

The content appears to mostly be up to date. The United States Safe Harbor section may be somewhat dated.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

The United States Safe Harbor and passenger name record issue section seemed to not match with the rest of the article. It's information was relevant, but seemed to be significantly more specific than the rest of the article and in my opinion did not merit its own major section. There appeared to be a few gaps in the article. One gap was that the Education section only dealt with the United Kingdom's National Pupil Database. This section should also include information on Educational information more generally and datasets relevant to the United States and other countries.


 * 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 not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, however, it could be edited to do so. Informational privacy affects underrepresented populations and information on those effects could be included. The article includes mentions to laws in North America, Asia, Europe, and Australia, but does not include laws from Africa or South America. I do not know if notable privacy laws exist on these continents, but recognize that the lack of inclusion may be indicative of an equity gap on Wikipedia.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

The article was neutral in tone.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article did not contain claims that appeared heavily biased towards a particular position. Looking at the Talk page revealed that some claims had previously been identified as biased and removed.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The educational section over represents Michael Grove's comments on the National Pupil Database by primarily including him as a source on it and not including any other people's thoughts on the database.


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article does not attempt to persuade.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

There are some areas of the article that should be better sourced. For example, the Financial subsection lacks citations.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

The article appears to have a good amount of sources.


 * Are the sources current?

While some sources are from prior to 2010 and thus may be dated, others are from the last five years.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The talk page expressly discussed the lack of representation of Indian and Chinese privacy laws and policies and there was an effort made by people familiar with these to address the gap. The sources appear varied and to represent authors from different countries as well as both male and female authors.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The links I checked worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Most of the article is well written. It had some sections that were stronger than others in terms of the written quality.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are some minor grammatical errors that could be addressed. I edited one such error in the Lead.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

I found the article to be well-organized. The inclusion of subsections for types of information were helpful to the overall organization.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No images are included.


 * Are images well-captioned?

Not applicable to the article.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Not applicable to the article.


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Not applicable to the article

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The most substantial conversation on the Talk page was about what to call the article. People were trying to be accurate in the name and to match the name to what people would search for if looking for the information.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is under the scope of WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass Surveillance. It is a "C" rated article.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

I was surprised that people brought in data to support their positions on changing the name and engaged in an active dialogue on it. I should not have been surprised by this as our training module discussed how people approach and resolve conflict on an article's talk page, but it was different to see it play out than to simply read about the phenomenon.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article is fairly developed, but could still use some more editing and would benefit from certain sections being added and others being expanded.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article provides an overview of the topic and links to numerous other Wikipedia pages that allow readers to learn more about the things being mentioned. I found this to be a really excellent model for a page like this one that deals with an exceedingly broad topic that has many subparts.


 * How can the article be improved?

Some of the sections can be expanded. Furthermore, some editing can be done to improve the continuity of the article between sections.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The article appears fairly developed. Based on the edit history and my own reading of the article it appear that the article was developed in phases. This has lead to a fragmented feel at times and has resulted in some parts being more thoroughly and better developed than others.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: