User:JuliaGu516/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.


 * Speaker Recognition: Speaker recognition
 * In an age in which recordings and voice modification is becoming more of a part of daily life (and thus something that the law also has to be aware of), speaker recognition is one that I find extremely fascinating and pertinent to the study of Language and Law.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?  Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Only the legal implications seems to have been missed.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?  The history of speaker recognition is mentioned in the Lead, as well as the anatomy and learned behavioral patterns, but are not mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?  It is concise and informative.

Lead evaluation
"Concise and clear, though could use a bit more to capture the topic that the body introduced."

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?  The content remains relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Judging by the most recent sources used (2019), it would seem that the article is mostly up-to-date unless any critical developments have occurred in the last year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As mentioned previously, the Lead mentions things that do not appear in the rest of the article. None of it seems to not belong, but the missed topics do need to be further explored in the content.

Content evaluation
Relevant, up-to-date as far as I know, and informative. However, there are some things missing as mentioned previously.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? This seems have removed the author's voice as much as possible. Nothing stands out in terms of trying to persuade anyone of anything.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no such claims in this article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? This article does focus more on the technology associated with speaker recognition. It doesn't need too much, but a mention of other fields that deal with speaker recognition could provide a little bit more of another viewpoint.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? It does not do this.

Tone and balance evaluation
The neutral tone is very well done and what's there does not appear to be biased. It wouldn't hurt to add another section detailing other aspects of speaker recognition other than the technology, but is overall very good.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not every fact is backed up with a source. In fact, there are already a few claims noted with [citation needed]. There are entire paragraphs that go by before one citation is included.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they seem to be relevant sources to the topic at hand.
 * Are the sources current? Not every source is, but there are discussions of older technologies that justify those sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links that I clicked do still work.

Sources and references evaluation
There are claims and facts within the article that need to be backed up.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is easily understandable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There don't seem to be any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It seems well broken down into relevant sections that reflect the topic, though it does miss a few of the ideas that the Lead presents.

Organization evaluation
No real issues here. The only one I mentioned is one that was already mentioned in a few of the other sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images. It could help presentation to add a few.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
 * 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, so adding a few wouldn't hurt.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a healthy amount of discussion for this page about this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This is part of the WikiProject Computer science and WikiProject Mass surveillance projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? While this isn't something we discussed in class, it was something I remember asking about in an email. Speaker recognition isn't the easiest thing to do, as most circumstances when voices are captured are in noisy and unclear environments. People aren't the most reliable and machines can be finicky. These are also things addressed in the article, though I do wonder if the way voice modification can impact things should be mentioned as well.

Talk page evaluation
A lot of discussion and deliberation on the changes made to the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I would say the article is decently strong, though needs some backing up with additional sources with many of the facts presented.
 * What are the article's strengths? It's written in a concise and understandable manner and is overall decently organized and informative.
 * How can the article be improved? There are additions that need to be made to explain certain topics that go unaddressed and claims that need to be properly backed up.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that the article falls on the underdeveloped side of the spectrum. What's there is good, but it does need additions.

Overall evaluation
Well done so far, but needs work to make sure all claims are well substantiated.

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: