User:Hjw38/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: Stylometry (Stylometry)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I choose this article because it was under the class's article resource page, and it seemed interesting to learn more about. Also previously in class we briefly mentioned how stylometry has been used in court cases to determine who wrote what, and was seen being used to help identify Ted Kaczynski in the popularized unabomber case.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes, the introductory sentence does concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Although it could have potentially been combined with the sentence following it, by using a semi-colon, since it gives another definition to what is stylometry as a linguistics discipline.


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

No the lead section does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, besides the definition of stylometry there is only the contents box.


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

Yes, the lead includes information about how stylometry has been successfully applied to music and fine-art paintings, but never mentioned either in the body of the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

While the lead is concise, it still lacks a brief description of the article's major sections.

Lead evaluation
The lead needs more work done to it, besides editing the introductory sentence so that it combines the first and second sentences together. This would also be seen in adding additional information about the article's major sections, while removing specific examples of where stylometry has been used in the past (i.e. Shakespeare's works, as seen in the last sentence of the lead) to make it more all encompassing while still remaining concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes the article's content is relevant to the topic, although the mentioning of software systems in the "Current Research" section doesn't entirely fit/ make sense, and can probably be moved to a different section in the article (i.e. "Applications"). And while personally, I believe the entire section on "Case Studies of Interest" to be too large in comparison to the other sections, the article currently remains relevant to topic.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes the article is up to date (I saw many sources that used recent publications from 2016-2019 in the notes section, and a couple recent ones from the past five years in the bibliography as well).


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

There is content that doesn't belong/ is missing; this is the reference to stylometry being used to identify authorship in music and fine-art in the lead section, but no information on either was present in the body of the article.

Content evaluation
Overall, I the content of the article is decent at best, due to the overrepresentation of some sections and underrepresentation of others; while there is currently good information offered in all of the sections, more can still be contributed to it so that more recent information is made more available (since a large majority of the information focuses on/ or comes from the 2010's and before).

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

The article overall is neutral.


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

The software systems in "Current Research" seems a bit promotional like to me (if they are going to be included, they should not only be in a different section - "Applications", but that section should include the negative aspects of the systems listed as well to help keep the article balanced in tone and arguments).


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The instances where stylometry has been used to identify authorship in the past is overrepresented, while sections like "Applications", "Current Research", and "Academic Venues and Events" are underrepresented due to the lack of general information under their headings.


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

No the article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article is neutral, but the evaluation of viewpoints needs to be fixed so that all of the sections are represented equally in the article. On a similar note, is the slight fixing of the promotional tone that I thought I caught in the "Current Research" section when different software was mentioned. If they are going to be included, then they should not only be in a different section - "Applications", but that section should include the negative aspects of the systems listed as well to help keep the article balanced in tone and arguments.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


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

No, not all the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information (in fact a majority of facts, and every sentence themselves aren't backed up by credible sources in the article).


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

The sources in the notes seems thorough and reflect the current scope of literature on stylometry, those listed in the bibliography do not in their entirety reflect all that is available on the topic to date.


 * Are the sources current?

While a few of the sources in the bibliography, and many of those in the notes section are from recent years, quite a bit of the sources used in the article are not current.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes the links in the article work (the blue ones do at least, but not the read ones).

Sources and references evaluation
Overall the sources are credible and give a good foundation in background information to a reader, however, more sources/references from 2016 onwards would make the article even better since, I feel like the reporting and progress in the field has continued to grow since the current resources were added to the site.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


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

Yes the article is well written, despite some sections being harder to read than others due to all of the technical terms being introduced, and then used in the same exact sentence in many examples found in "Data and Methods" and "Academic Venues and Events."


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors that I could find.


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

Yes the article is well-organized, being broken down into sections with some even having their own sub-headings as well.

Organization evaluation
es the article is well-organized, being broken down into sections with some even having their own sub-headings as well. However, I feel too much focus and space has been wasted on the "Case Studies of Interest" section, since overall they (the many case studies) only give examples of stylometry in practice, but do not explain the hows, whys, and etc. behind stylometry as a whole/ help create a bigger picture about the topic. Furthermore, while the sections are for the most part easy to read, "Data and Methods" and "Academic Venues and Events" can definitely be gone over, so that information can be expanded upon further, so that it no longer seems as stilted due to the rapid introduction of terms in the single sentence offered for a point or sub heading.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

There are no images included in the article at all.


 * Are images well-captioned?

There are no images in the article at all.


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

There are no images in the article at all.


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

There are no images in the article at all.

Images and media evaluation
Since there are no images, videos, or any type of diagrams made available on the article's page, I find the article on stylometry to be greatly lacking, despite having a great deal of room for improvement (Although I acknowledge that finding appropriate images and media that can be added to it would be a challenge.).

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 talks going on are from 2015, and discuss the writing of professional editors versus non-professional editors which someone is hoping to use in their thesis.


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

This article is rated as a start class and of low importance for both the WikiProject Shakespeare and WikiProject Linguistics.


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

Wikipedia mostly discussed this topic in the cases where it was used to determine authorship (cases and history) and methods for how it does such. Our class has also briefly gone over how text can be used to identify authors in cases, but nothing was ever mentioned of how this is done/managed on the scale that the article did. Moreover, author identification was for the purpose of providing evidence for the prosecution or defense, rather than the authorship/ legal rights to a text as the article highlighted.

Talk page evaluation
I found the talk page disappointing, since the last post was from 2015 and didn't mention anything truly pertaining to the article in any of the posts. However, the edits page was a bit better, since there were a few edits made in 2020, and had a decent backlog of additions and changes from the previous years.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article's status is low importance and start-class on both of the WikiProjects of which it is a member (Shakespeare and Linguistics). I agree with the start-class rating the article currently has, since there is still much work that needs to be done to flesh out its sections before it can attain a C or B ranking.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article's strength is that it has already identified its main topics and sub topics under each heading, and has at least one sentence of information under each so far.


 * How can the article be improved?

The article will be improved once more recent sources are added, citations are added to all of the sentences rather than just ones that have facts expressly stated, and the underdeveloped heading are more fleshed out (given more information).


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

I would rate the article as being half complete, since it already has a couple of completely fleshed out sections, and its main sections/topics are neatly organized with information under each heading, all that it needs to work on is adding more recent and relevant information under its skimpier sections, and adding citations to all of its sentences and overt facts will increase its rating on the website.

Overall evaluation
I would rate the article as being half complete, since it already has a couple of completely fleshed out sections, and its main sections/topics are neatly organized with information under each heading, all that it needs to work on is adding more recent and relevant information under its skimpier sections, and adding citations to all of its sentences and overt facts will increase its rating on the website. However as it currently stands, only the bare bones of information on stylometry is given under each heading and sub heading, and more research and writing needs to be done for all sections (some more than others) for its role in linguistics. Similarly, a more fine combed proof reading and editing by contributors so that sections flow better into each other would not be amiss either.

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: