User:Kat0801/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (1)

 * Name of article: Information privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I was tasked to evaluate this article regarding information privacy from the English Wikipedia page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentences does this precisely.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, while there is a contents structure showing the major sections of the article, there is no sentence description giving an overview of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead briefly mentions different fields that work to address the issue of data security, but does not talk much about it later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is extremely well written. It is concise, descriptive, and provides a good introduction to the content in the remainder of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content that is written is very relevant and relates directly to the topic of information privacy. All of these subcategories relate their descriptions to the concerns of privacy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The majority of the content is up to date, coming from recent and relevant articles. There are a few sources from 2010 and earlier, however, which are not as relevant now.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't believe there is missing content 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?
 * No, the article does not.

Content evaluation
The content overall is relevant to the topic of information privacy and provides mostly relevant sources to back up the claims.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, the article does not seem to be particularly neutral in a few instances that use words expressing an opinion.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, there are claims that appear biased towards the negativity of information privacy in the sense that the internet is not a particularly safe place. This could be seen through the use of the word "unfortunately" in the sentence.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The concern regarding privacy, or the lack thereof, is very overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article appears to attempt to persuade the reader to feel that information privacy is a big issue at the moment that needs to be addressed more.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone is heavily favored towards disapproving of the current state of information privacy which is not a neutral point of view.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, while a majority of the facts are backed up by a secondary source, there are sentences and paragraphs without a secondary source of information (citations).
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, there are many references that come from a wide array of sources that appear to encapsulate a good representation of the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * A majority of the sources are current (2010 and later), but there are a few that are dated earlier.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is a diverse spectrum of authors. Some are included in databases, others in official news sources, and others from published papers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used are all referenced and come from a variety of backgrounds which is good. However, there are some instances of facts missing references to a secondary source to back up the claims.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is pretty well structured with clearly defined sections that make it easy to follow and read through. Some of the subdivisions choices are a bit confusing to understand, however, although the content is relevant.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is an inconsistency with the placement of periods within quotes, as for some quotes the period is placed outside of the quote.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is broken down into major sections that all relate to the point of the article. These sections are all clearly defined and appropriate and make the flow of reading easy.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the article made sense and had a structure to it, though I did feel that the structure could have been split up better in a more clear way.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, there are no images in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images in the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images in the article.

Images and media evaluation
There were no images to support the article, so there was not any to evaluate.

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 discussion about multiple sections of the article. One individual suggested altering the definition of information privacy in the first line, and another suggested adding additional information to the internet section. There are also discussions regarding citations, both regarding adding more sources and also questioning the reliability of sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated a C on the WikiProjects of Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed this topic in too much detail in class, but this article presents information privacy from a pretty broad spectrum, picking out specific details that relate to the entire topic as whole.

Talk page evaluation
Overall, the talk page has a lot of good information, with people suggesting numerous ways to improve the article in a variety of different ways. The suggestions all add to the credibility and effectiveness of the article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status of the article is that it provides good information related to the topic of information privacy, although there are certain elements that make the article not as strong as it could be.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a clearly defined structure and strong introduction.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The tone of the article and the sources used could be improved to be more neutral and relevant.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is in the middle of being well-developed and underdeveloped. There are parts that could be more developed (specific content and subcategories), but some parts (such as the introduction) that are already strong enough.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I agree with the rating of a C for the article that was given by the WikiProjects as there are definitely areas for improvement, despite it having a decent backbone as of now.

Evaluate an article (2)

 * Name of article: Privacidad en Internet
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I've found the topic of privacy, especially in the internet, to be very interesting and wanted to explore more about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence of the article provides a good representation of this.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead more talks about the history of the internet privacy issues, rather than what it talks about in later sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, it talks about the history of internet privacy, such as the InterNIC and ICANN which are not mentioned later.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is pretty thorough in regards to background information, but is not overwhelming.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead provides good background information about the topic, though it could be more descriptive about what the article will discuss later.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is particularly relevant and relates directly to the topic of internet privacy. The subcategories describe issues that relate to the concerns of privacy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up-to-date, with almost all of the sources being from within the past 2 years (2018 and later).
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't believe there is missing content 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?
 * No, the article does not.

Content evaluation
The content overall is very relevant to the topic of internet privacy and provides many recent and relevant sources to support the arguments.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, the article does not appear to be particularly neutral in many instances that use words expressing an opinion, such as "bad."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, there are claims that appear biased towards the disfavor of the modern state of information privacy. There is even a sentence beginning with "You certainly don't want."
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The concern regarding the amount of information privacy on the internet is very overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article appears to attempt to persuade the reader to feel that there is not enough privacy on the internet right now.

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone is heavily favored towards disapproving of the current state of internet privacy which is not a neutral point of view.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, while there are facts that are backed up by a secondary source, there are also many sentences and paragraphs without a secondary source of information. Wikipedia even mentions that it needs more sources at the top.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources come from journals, articles, and websites which reflect a good variety of the available sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are very current (2018 and later), but there are a couple that are dated earlier.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is a diverse spectrum of authors. Some are included in journals, others in websites, and others from published articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used are all referenced and come from a variety of backgrounds which is good. However, there are not enough references for the amount of content that is written and provided by the article, which make it not as reliable.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is pretty well structured in terms of its sections that make it pretty clear to follow and read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors I saw when reading through the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article is broken down into major sections that all relate to the point of the article. These sections are all clearly defined and appropriate and make the flow of reading easy.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the organization of the article made sense and had a decent structure to it, though I did feel that there could be more added in new subcategories.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image of a lock that relates to the topic, but does not really enhance my understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the image has a good caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is placed on the right hand side in the Lead section, which I did not feel was super necessary or informative.

Images and media evaluation
There could definitely be the inclusion of more images as the one provided was not very necessary.

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 was only one comment regarding linking the article to another one being written. There were no discussions about the actual content.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is not a part of any WikiProjects and does not have a particular rating.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed this topic in too much detail in class, but this article supports and relates to the idea that many people brought up about recent concerns regarding internet privacy, especially on social media apps.

Talk page evaluation
Overall, the talk page does not have much going on, and could be contributed to greatly.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article has a good foundation for the information that it is trying to cover, although I did feel that there could be areas that needed a better structure or more information and sources.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a good division of categories within each of its subcategories to make reading and understanding the article clear.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The tone of the article could be improved to be more neutral, and there needs to be an addition of more sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is in more underdeveloped than well developed. A big part to this is the lack of references that it has, with many claims.

Overall evaluation
Overall, I there are definitely areas for improvement within the article, though I do feel that it is a great starting point to build off of.