User:FilleAvecUneCrâne/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (#1)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Information privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I'm evaluating this article because it was required for everyone to do so. I think this is because the broad topic of informational privacy in English is an important starting place for us.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the lead does include an intro sentence that I believe clearly describes informational privacy.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, while the lead does touch on some of the article's major sections, overall I don't believe it successfully includes a brief description of all of them.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead includes info about different fields that attempt to address informational privacy, which isn't ever explicitly talked about in the article, only implied throughout.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is overly concise, to the point of even being not detailed enough.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead, while it summarizes the article very broadly, could be improved with information more relevant to the article's content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes overall the article's content is relevant to the topic going over different important aspects of informational privacy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes for the most part the content is up-to-date, however no sources are from 2020, and there are some sources from 2004 or 2006. And with a topic like info privacy, I believe thats something that is always changing and should be up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, it appears that everything there belongs, and there is a good overview of things so it doesn't appear anything is missing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No I don't believe this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps as it doesn't address a historically underrepresented populations or topics, in fact something like info privacy is given a lot of coverage today.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content appears to do a good job of covering the important aspects of info privacy. However because a topic like info privacy is always changing, updating some of the articles sources may improve the quality of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, I think the article could do a better job of neutralizing its language throughout. For example this sentence, "To avoid giving away too much personal information, emails should be encrypted," could be reworded, or "the ability to control the information one reveals about oneself over the internet, and who can access that information, has become a growing concern" or "people may not wish for their medical records to be revealed to others" should probably have citations.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there aren't any glaringly obvious biases, just multiple small things that result in the article not being wholly neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Yes I believe the viewpoint of info privacy in the US/Europe are overrepresented as compared to other parts of the world. This is because even though this is a very broad topic, the US still got its own subheading, something that potentially have gone into an article created specifically for the US.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, I think the article, through its use of non-neutral language tries to persuade the reader that their data is in danger.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, I think the article's language in multiple places throughout is not wholly neutral, and that the article possesses the bias that the readers' data is in immediate danger (something that may or may not be true, but certainly is something we shouldn't be told, rather shown).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source, for example "XACML – The Extensible Access Control Markup Language together with its Privacy Profile is a standard for expressing privacy policies in a machine-readable language which a software system can use to enforce the policy in enterprise IT systems." has no citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No I don't believe all the sources are wholly thorough, in fact one of the sources is to a website of a VPN seller, or to enotes.com a question and answer website where anyone can respond to anyone without any credentials.
 * Are the sources current?
 * While for the most part the sources are from the last couple of years (2018 onward, excluding 2020), there are still some 2004 or 2006 and with such a changing topic, I think it is important to have the most up to date sources as possible.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links I checked worked, it's just there are a few questionable sources to begin with.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the sources for this article are very poor if they include a business website and an unverifiable question and answer site, when instead they should primarily be peer reviewed journals. As well, the sources should be more up to date since no references come from this year and info privacy is ever changing.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * This article, while concise and generally easy to read, from my previous analysis it is evident the information and facts included may be questionable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't find any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the article appears to be broken into major topics that reflect the major points of info privacy, however I think it may be from a point of bias that the sub-topic,"United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues" was included.

Organization evaluation
Overall while the breakdown of the topics appears to be effective (excluding "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues"), what is included within them may be questionable.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
No media or images were included in this 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?
 * Most of the conversations on talk page are about edits to the article about doing things like making the article more neutral.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is a part of 3 WikiProjects: Computing, Internet, and Mass Surveillance where in each it earns a "C" assessment.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Yes the way Wiki discusses this topic isn't too different from how we've talked about the overall topic in class.

Talk page evaluation
Overall the Talk page focuses on editing the article to make it more neutral or clear, which is important to do as it is a part of three WikiProjects and has the distinction of "High Importance".

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is that it needs improvement, especially because it is an important topic to computing, internet, and mass surveillence.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The articles strengths are that it creates an effective broad outline to tackle the very broad topic of info privacy, it also links to a lot of good other related articles.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could be improved by updating sources to be more recent, getting rid of clearly invalid sources, updating the language to be more neutral, and getting rid of the sub-topic "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues", or at least move it somewhere else more relevant.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess this article's completeness as being under-developed. There are some good things there, but also plenty of questionable things, that one may not even catch at first glance.

Overall evaluation
Overall while this article possesses a good starting point for what could potentially be a complete, well-done article, many things need to be removed, updated, or neutralized in order for it to get to that point.

Evaluate an article (#2)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donn%C3%A9es_de_sant%C3%A9 (Donnés de santé) (Health Data)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article on Health Data because I find that to be a very interesting topic and would be curious how this is addressed in France.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the intro sentence does a good job of clearly introducing health data.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead, even though detailed, doesn't do a very good job at going over the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed including small details that could've been better put later on in the article.

Lead evaluation
Overall, while the intro sentence is really strong, the rest of the lead appears to be too detailed about the wrong things.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes article's content is relevant to the topic, but it is organized rather randomly.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The majority of the sources are from before 2015 so no the content is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It appears the major topics of the article are very specific which seems odd because that would make it difficult to create uniformity across articles of similar nature.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this articles doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's content gaps as it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented groups, health data is a much talked about topic today.

Content evaluation
Overall the content of this article, while a bit dated, still appears rather effective, however the organization of the content seems poor and random.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article appears to do a good job of writing in a neutral, fact-based tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints appear to be overrepresented or underrepresented unless you consider the viewpoint of all the content to be about France as opposed to other francophone countries, but that also makes sense on French Wikipedia.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the article does a good job of writing in a factual, neutral tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The majority of facts in the article appeared to be backed up, I say the majority because I'm not wholly sure if some things are considered facts or not and would warrant a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources aren't terribly thorough, I found some from random websites, not exactly peer reviewed journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources aren't that current considering most are from before 2015, and with something as ever-changing as health data that should be improved upon.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm not certain they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, from the looks of it a lot is from the French government.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Actually not all the links I clicked on worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Even though a lot of things were cited, the sources are rather dated and are questionable with some broken links and coming from questionable places like random websites. Improving this would definitely improve the article's credibility.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I find the article rather difficult to read because the organization of topics appears sporadic, but the content itself seems easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't find any spelling or grammar erros.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I don't think the article is well-organized, the headings seem too specific, in fact one sub-heading had only two lines under it.

Organization evaluation
Overall organizing the article better would greatly improve readability and ease confusion.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media available for this 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?
 * Shockingly, there was no discussion on the Talk Page!
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated B for the WikiProjects about Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't really discussed this topic, but even if we did here this would've differed because it is addressed it from a French perspective.

Talk page evaluation
Surprisingly, even though there isn't any discussion on the Talk Page this article gets a B rating for the WikiProject for medicine.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is a "B" according to Wikipedia but I would give it a C instead.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article's strengths are that is has lots of things cited (from questionable content however) and good relevant content!
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by updating and removing sources, cleaning up the lead paragraph, organizing the content better, and by getting editors to use the Talk Page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say this article is underdeveloped because I think a lot of good content is there, it just needs more work done.

Overall evaluation
Overall I'm rather surprised this article got a higher rating that Info Privacy, because I think by updating and removing sources, cleaning up the lead paragraph, organizing the content better, and by getting editors to use the Talk Page this article could improve greatly.

Evaluate an article (#2)[edit]
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donn%C3%A9es_de_sant%C3%A9 (Donnés de santé) (Health Data)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I've chosen to evaluate this article on Health Data because I find that to be a very interesting topic and would be curious how this is addressed in France.

Lead[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes the intro sentence does a good job of clearly introducing health data.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead, even though detailed, doesn't do a very good job at going over the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed including small details that could've been better put later on in the article.

Lead evaluation[edit]
Overall, while the intro sentence is really strong, the rest of the lead appears to be too detailed about the wrong things.

Content[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes article's content is relevant to the topic, but it is organized rather randomly.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The majority of the sources are from before 2015 so no the content is not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It appears the major topics of the article are very specific which seems odd because that would make it difficult to create uniformity across articles of similar nature.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No this articles doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's content gaps as it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented groups, health data is a much talked about topic today.

Content evaluation[edit]
Overall the content of this article, while a bit dated, still appears rather effective, however the organization of the content seems poor and random.

Tone and Balance[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article appears to do a good job of writing in a neutral, fact-based tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints appear to be overrepresented or underrepresented unless you consider the viewpoint of all the content to be about France as opposed to other francophone countries, but that also makes sense on French Wikipedia.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader.

Tone and balance evaluation[edit]
Overall the article does a good job of writing in a factual, neutral tone.

Sources and References[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The majority of facts in the article appeared to be backed up, I say the majority because I'm not wholly sure if some things are considered facts or not and would warrant a citation.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources aren't terribly thorough, I found some from random websites, not exactly peer reviewed journals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources aren't that current considering most are from before 2015, and with something as ever-changing as health data that should be improved upon.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I'm not certain they are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, from the looks of it a lot is from the French government.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Actually not all the links I clicked on worked.

Sources and references evaluation[edit]
Even though a lot of things were cited, the sources are rather dated and are questionable with some broken links and coming from questionable places like random websites. Improving this would definitely improve the article's credibility.

Organization[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I find the article rather difficult to read because the organization of topics appears sporadic, but the content itself seems easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't find any spelling or grammar erros.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I don't think the article is well-organized, the headings seem too specific, in fact one sub-heading had only two lines under it.

Organization evaluation[edit]
Overall organizing the article better would greatly improve readability and ease confusion.

Images and Media[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation[edit]
There are no images or media available for this article.

Checking the talk page[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Shockingly, there was no discussion on the Talk Page!
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated B for the WikiProjects about Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't really discussed this topic, but even if we did here this would've differed because it is addressed it from a French perspective.

Talk page evaluation[edit]
Surprisingly, even though there isn't any discussion on the Talk Page this article gets a B rating for the WikiProject for medicine.

Overall impressions[edit]

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is a "B" according to Wikipedia but I would give it a C instead.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article's strengths are that is has lots of things cited (from questionable content however) and good relevant content!
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by updating and removing sources, cleaning up the lead paragraph, organizing the content better, and by getting editors to use the Talk Page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say this article is underdeveloped because I think a lot of good content is there, it just needs more work done.

Overall evaluation[edit]
Overall I'm rather surprised this article got a higher rating that Info Privacy, because I think by updating and removing sources, cleaning up the lead paragraph, organizing the content better, and by getting editors to use the Talk Page this article could improve greatly.