User:Fsharbi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Cyberwarfare e )

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
( This article on Cyberwarfare is a very good example for neutral information sources on any topic. It seems to me the only part that needs to be improved is historical part and the only part that needs to be added is theoretical analysis part. Historical explanations are too general, and we cannot make theoretical connections. It is understandable if the authors did not want to confuse the readers by focusing on history and theory though. Other than that, information was provided in a very neutral way and concisely. Any reader would gain lots of knowledge on the topic of cyberwarfare. I think one of the most important aspect of this article was how cyberwarfare is categorized and compared in terms of different understandings of the cultures. Last but not least, the article also explores the cyberwarfare in terms of different dimensions. I think it is a great comprehensive way to convey information to the readers of all backgrounds.

)

Evaluate the article
Cyberwarfare

The lead section provides clear information about the definition of cyberwarfare in the first short paragraph. However, without exploring the basic concepts about the phenomenon, other paragraphs in this section focuses on the comparisons and explains the concept in terms of kinetic military actions (active use of military in the field). This makes the lead section very detailed and provides unnecessary information for the readers.

Article’s content focuses on types of cyberwarfare with a focus on comparative approach. I think it is important to understand how cyberwarfare is perceived internationally. Thus, the article presents a very good method to show the concept of cyberwarfare in a neutral way. Besides, topics discussed are up-to-date because sources referenced are recently published studies and trustable newspaper websites. However, cyberwarfare was not examined in terms of historical perspective. After reading this Wikipedia article, the reader will not have adequate information about how it is first used, and how things developed over time. I believe that understanding the use of certain doctrines in international relations requires a broad historical background analysis. For example, if we want to understand cyber-attacks in general, we need understand how it was first used by whom and against whom. This will also give an idea to apply theories, such as security dilemma or power transition to understand the interactions. Given the information provided, we cannot have any historical and, thereby, theoretical information about the cyberwarfare.

Article was written in a very neutral point of view. I do not think that there is any biased information. With that being said, I do believe that the information provided looks shallow given the nature of the topic, i.e., cyberwarfare. Especially, I liked how motivations for the use of cyberwarfare were presented to the readers in the article. I think this part could have suffered most from the bias, but the article presents military, civil, public, and private sector dimensions in a way that does not suffer from any misinformation. So, I really liked this part.

References are presented in footnotes. This is a big concern if for scholarly articles. However, Wikipedia articles should not be considered as scholarly pieces. In fact, the main purpose is to provide information to the readers irrespective of the background information. Therefore, the use of footnotes is totally fine. I really liked the references. The most important part was the references cited have all hyperlinks that allow access to the sources. Although few references did not include the links nor URLs, it was still easy to reach the sources. In sum, there was no unreachable or inaccessible sources provided in the article.

The article was well-written. It was very concise and informative. Jargons were not used and any reader without background theoretical, technical, or professional information could still understand the topic. It was easy to read and well-organized. There were some helpful images and visualizations showing cyberattacks. Especially how these attacks are planned and executed can be confusing to understand. The article provides figures that shows the examples with timelines. For example, the one showing how cyberattacks were implemented by hackers on Saudi Aramco was very helpful for me to understand the process and easily apply for the other similar examples.

The article was not rated, but it was obvious that it was improved through updated. It was last updated on May 29, 2021 at 12:07 pm (UTC). In addition, the article was prepared in a comprehensive way, meaning that many external information was provided for further information. For example, a reader with interest in this topic could access other relevant articles, videos, institutional websites, and other related sources.