User:GlossomathisRabbit/Evaluate an Article

This Evaluate an article sandbox contains my (GlossomathisRabbit's) evaluations of two privacy articles: one on English Wikipedia and one on French Wikipedia. For both, I discuss their leads, content, tone and balance, sources and references, organization, images and media, and talk pages, concluding with a summary of strengths and areas of improvement.

English: Information Privacy
Name of article: Information privacy

I evaluated this article because it was the article that was assigned in the dashboard. It's relevant to the work that we are doing in the lab, and it also looks like it has a lively Talk page (with several discussion threads started by usernames I recognize from this lab)!

Lead evaluation
The lead does include an introductory sentence that provides a definition for "information privacy", as well as alternative names for the concept. It is concise, succinctly touching on relevant fields. However, the syntax of the sentence makes the definition of "information privacy" itself unclear. For this reason, it is unclear if the lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant and current, having been last updated this week of June 2020 and including sources that span the decade. The content in the article is relevant to the topic of information privacy. The types of information that fall under the topic's purview are discussed, and the article includes links to laws and regulatory institutions that deal with information privacy. It also discusses what systems--legal and technical--are in place to protect against privacy concerns. The article could be improved by making the definition of information privacy clearer. There is also the potential for the article to discuss more types of information or their privacy implications. Furthermore, there is one section that seems a little out of place: the one that discusses the United States Safe Harbor Program. It is relevant content, but it takes up more space than organizationally makes sense and may be better if discussed in less detail or moved to a separate article.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is mostly neutral in language. However, the usage of unassuming phrases, such as "should" and "unfortunately", can be construed as not neutral and in fact biased. This mainly comes across when discussing Internet privacy, where the article reads as if it would like to suggest a course of action to readers. The article does well in linking to authorities from different countries, not just from one particular area. However, the article is still somewhat centered around the United States. For example, in the Internet privacy section, a reference to the FTC is made. Since the article does not limit itself to talking about the United States, as evidenced by its inclusion of information privacy authorities across the world, it would perhaps be clearer for all readers to note that the FTC is an institution in the United States. It would also be nice to see more specific information, rather than simply links, about information privacy issues outside of the United States, or even outside of the European Union.

Sources and references evaluation
The article uses sources that are current, with references spanning the past decade, and the links work. Most of the sources are thorough and appear to be reliable, coming from research journals and well-established news media. However, the article's use of citations could be improved. There are several claims throughout the text that lack citations. There is also a quotation in the cable television section that is not attributed in the text (citation is given though). Furthermore, there are a couple of sources that do not appear to be a reliable secondary source of information. One links to a forum, while a second only links to another Wikipedia page.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well-written. It is easy to read and appropriately concise. There are few grammatical or spelling errors. The only distracting error was the syntax of the definition provided in the lead. The article is also well-organized. Major points have been appropriately identified, ensuring that each section visually appears balanced, and within sections themselves, the text are displayed in an easy-to-read manner. However, there is one section that stands out: the one that talks about the United States Safe Harbor program. The section title is not very concise, and it is slightly misleading in that it specifically names the United States but the section discusses negotiations between the US and the European Union as well. This section also organizationally stands out in that it singles out a specific program and issue.

Images and media evaluation
The article does not use any images or media. The organization of the article is clear, so it does not look like an image is necessary at the introduction of the article. Still, it may be helpful to include an image, but with an abstract concept like information privacy, care would need to be taken so that the image that is included does not distract from the content of the article. Alternatively, an image could be included for sections, such as the ones about technical protections or the US Safe Harbor program.

Talk page evaluation
This article has several interesting conversations going on in the Talk page. The longest conversation is about whether the article should be moved from "information privacy" to "informational privacy." Much of the conversation hinges on the grammatical aspect (very exciting for someone who studies languages) and whether a less accurate term (according to reliable, specialist sources) but one that is commonly recognized is appropriate for the article. Similarly, one user suggested merging the article with "digital privacy" because, though different, they are intertwined.

Other discussions that are taking place deal with the neutral point of view of the article. Interestingly, some of these concerns about neutrality arise from phrases that are not so obviously biased, such as "it is important" or "should." Users have also pointed out citations that are inaccessible, unclear, or missing.

This article is part of the Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance WikiProjects. On all of the projects, it has been rated C-class and of high importance. While many of the discussions relate to making the article better, there, unfortunately, also seem to be a couple of threads posted that are expressing pure opinion without suggesting actionable and appropriate edits to the article.

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is a good start but it has room for development and improvement. The lead, though syntactically confusing, is otherwise appropriate, and the organization of the article is clear. The content is relevant and written in language that is not explicitly biased. The article does well in considering information privacy internationally and pulling largely from reliable secondary sources. The article could be improved, though, by adjusting the syntax of the lead so that the meaning is clearer, reevaluating the weight of the United States Safe Harbor Program section of the article, and combing through the text to ensure that subtly biased phrases are not used and that claims are followed by appropriate citations.

Optional activity
I left my evaluation of the lead on the talk page of this article!

French: Trace Numérique (Digital Footprint)
Name of article: Trace numérique

I chose this article because, first, the article is relevant to privacy and cyber security, since "trace numérique" means "digital footprint". Second, I became interested in evaluating the article when I noticed a banner at the top of the page, encouraging users to improve the verifiability of the article. The banner, which was posted in January 2014, said that the article did not rely on enough secondary or tertiary sources, and I thought it would be interesting to review an article that had been cited for imrovement.

Lead evaluation
The lead includes an introductory sentence that describes what fields the term "trace numérique" is used for. It is followed up with a concise description of what can be included as part of a digital footprint and why the concept of a digital footprint is relevant to society. It provides a road map for the article's major sections, and it includes information that is later brought up in the article again. Overall, the lead is clear, concise, and appropriate.

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and half-current (last updated May 2020), but there exists a significant content gap. For starters, the content of the article could do more to discuss what a digital footprint is. Examples of what or how information is collected are given but there is room for the article to grow in explaining what a digital footprint is from a more technical perspective. The content is also geared largely to the legal implications of a digital footprint in France; it would therefore be beneficial to include more information about the legal impacts in more nations, especially other francophone ones. Third, the section of the article that discusses protections of digital footprints cites articles from around 2011-2013. Including more current information can help close the content gap and also help with the tone and balance of the article.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article has a neutral lead, but the rest of the article is somewhat imbalanced or even biased. One aspect in which it is not neutral is that it highlights examples and case studies where digital footprints were used in a negative or dangerous manner. While privacy issues relating to digital footprints should be discussed, it could be helpful to also discuss protections. As mentioned above, the protections section is outdated, so updating this section could potentially help balance the tone of the article. In addition, the article seems to be written from the perspective of a French citizen, and information about other nations' laws, even those of francophone nations, is not covered. There is also a vague attempt to distinguish the use of a digital footprint in democratic countries versus non-democratic countries, but there are no descriptions of how countries would be categorized (these sections are also very short).

Sources and references evaluation
The article has a serious lack of citations, which explains the banner that appeared at the top of the article. There are several instances in which examples or case studies are given, but no sources are cited following the sentence(s). There are also instances where a quote is given but no author or speaker is attributed in the text (a citation does follow the sentence). Furthermore, an entire section of the article relies only on historical documents. It either quotes or paraphrases these primary sources, but no information is given on the researched impact or discussion around them. The quality of the secondary sources that do appear is inconsistent. Some are up-to-date articles published in research journals; others are developer blogs from 2011. The links do work though.

Organization evaluation
The article is free of obvious grammatical or spelling errors. The lead was well-written, but unfortunately, the rest of the article was inconsistent in quality. In part due to the heavy reliance on quotations, some sections were hard to read and perhaps longer than appropriate. The major sections of the topic would have been appropriate if the content were more thorough and current. Some of the subsections were very short and, in the current iteration of the article, would be unnecessary. It should be noted though that there is a footnote in the first subsection that suggests revisiting the style of the article.

Images and media evaluation
The article includes one image, captioned simply as a "Carte d'Internet" (map of the Internet). It is a little unclear how the image is related to the topic of a "digital footprint." The image is small, and the size makes it appear as if it is any generic network of colorful lines. As such, the image could be better captioned to briefly explain what it is and tie it more directly to the article topic. Alternatively, a different image that is more reflective of the article topic could replace it. The image is pulled from Wikimedia commons, but the caption does not attribute the image to the organization that provided it.

Talk page evaluation
Interestingly, there are no discussions happening on the Talk page for the article. There is only a message encouraging users to help correct links. The article is part of the project Cryptologie, and it is rated as a good start and of medium importance. Since the French Talk page did not have much content, I took a look at the Talk page for the English article about the same concept. One difference I noted was that the article was part of several WikiProjects and listed as high importance for a couple of them. I also thought it was interesting that one English Wikipedia user discussed the difference between a "footprint" and a "presence" because they were redirected to the "digital footprint" article from "web presence."

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article is underdeveloped, and it is clear why it was described as an article with a good start and of mid-level importance. The article could be improved if more current information were included, and if more secondary sources and research were referenced. It could also be improved if formatting, citations, and media use followed guidelines better. The article has a strong lead, and it has identified sections that would be relevant to the topic. With this sturdy a road map, if more work would just go into it, then the article could reach its potential.

Optional activity
I have not left my evaluation on this article's talk page at this time.