User:HanMiKC/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 *  Article: Information Privacy: (Information privacy) 
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because it is relevant to my work for my lab.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

==== The lead to my article is very concise and answers all the points above. It also links to other topics that the lead mentioned that the user might not be familiar with, giving them the opportunity to read up on such topics before perhaps diving into the article further. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Content evaluation: The content of this article is very well-written, and addresses multiple aspects of information privacy that would overall give the reader a good understanding of the topic as a whole, such as examples of information privacy concerns, laws put in place to protect information privacy, and examples of information types (education, political, healthcare, etc.). I see that in the references, the author uses sources that are from as recent as 2018, which was 2 years ago. I am unsure if this constitutes being extremely out-of-date, but there are some articles that date back to the early 2000s. I would suggest finding more recent information on these topics, especially when talking about laws or policies that might have changed. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

==== Tone and balance evaluation: I see no immediate biases in the article, and it seems fairly neutral. Exaggerated phrases such as "greatly" are used in a neutral context when describing how varied legality of information privacy is around the world, rather than to assert a specific position. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in a certain direction. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

==== Sources and references evaluation: There are a fair amount of sources that back up the points made in the article, and all the sources are relevant to the topic. I do, however, see a few articles from sources such as The New York Times, which can be a biased source, unlike a peer-reviewed academic journal. However, I don't believe this source was used to prove a point in the article, but rather used to provide differing opinions about a topic mentioned in the article. The few links I checked worked. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== Organization evaluation: The article is well-written and easy to read, although some topics mentioned might be hard to understand if someone came in without any knowledge of the topic. The article was broken down into parts well, but I don't know if those parts were organized in the best way. I was confused about the "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues" section, and I believe that was the one section in this article that seemed out-of-place. Also, the Authorities section should not have been first in my opinion, but rather the section that described different types of information, as the amount of hyperlinks with no descriptions in the Authorities section seemed a bit daunting. ====

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

==== Talk page evaluation: I see conversations happening about removing certain language in the article because it seemed to give-off the impression of being an opinion, rather than a fact. There's some explicit language going on in the conversations, but it is used in casual conversation rather than being an insult. The article is a part of WikiProjects Computing. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

==== Overall evaluation: Overall, the article is pretty solid information and neutrality-wise. I think the article is well-developed, although as I mentioned the inclusion of certain sections seemed a bit distracting, but those sections were overall well-written. ====


 *  Article: Spoofing Attack: (Spoofing attack) 
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because it is relevant to my work for my lab, and it will help me practice evaluating an article in Wikipedia.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

==== The lead to my article is a simple, singular sentence that describes the topic of the article very concisely. To a person unaware of the topic beforehand, it was easy to understand and not overly-detailed. There is a contexts box that shows the article's sections, but within the writing of the lead itself there is no mention of the article's main sections, which might be an improvement that needs to be made. ====

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

==== Content evaluation: The content is relevant to the topic, and a majority of the sources are relatively up-to-date, but there are a few older articles that seem out-dated. However, these articles were used as sources to define terms, and I don't think the definition of such terms would need updating from how they were defined years ago. But then again, it's always important to check. My concern comes with the fact that there is an entire section of examples of spoofing that have no sources attached to them. There needs to be sources for those sections as they seem to describe factual information, but there is nowhere to trace whether that information is actually accurate. ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

==== Tone and balance evaluation: There seems to be no immediate-biases present in the article. There are a great deal of examples provided to give context of the statements the author made, but no side seems overly or underly represented. I don't believe the article is trying to persuade the reader one way or the other. ====

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * 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?

==== Sources and references evaluation: I feel that there are too little sources in this article in the context of the sections the author wrote. There are 4-5 sections after the lead that go without proper sources, and are instead linked to other Wikipedia articles. Does this count as reliable sourcing? I am unsure about that. However, the article's actual sources don't appear until a little less than half-way into the article. The sources are definitely diverse, but there are a few news articles that aren't the most accurate, unbiased sources of information. The links work. ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

==== Organization evaluation: The organization of the article seems logical, I think the sections that are broken down well, but I feel that the diversity in the sections is a bit monotone. All the sections are examples of spoofing, and I'm unsure if there could be any other more-diverse sections, such as implications, that would give the article more. However, the sections were split cleanly and they were well-informed. There are no noticeable spelling errors/grammar errors. ====

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

==== Talk page evaluation: The conversations in the talk page are minimal, but there was one comment that suggested the user edit the lead to make it more understandable than what it previously was, and the author definitely followed through. They were also asked to clarify some general words, like "last summer". This is under the WikiProjects Computer Security. ====

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

==== Overall evaluation: Overall, the article is informative. I think it was broken down well and easy to understand. Perhaps more sections could be made that aren't just examples of Spoofing, and more reliable sources could be used rather than just hyperlinking other Wiki articles. ====