User:Kteah/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? Yes.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? I'd say it's a little detailed, but it sets up the whole article well so I don't see a problem with that.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? There are sources that range from the 1990s all the way to 2021 so I'd say that the article is up to date. (But not in the "In social research" section)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is information missing in the Christianity subsection of "In religion"
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I don't think so, it does talk about Islams in the "In religion" section but I'm not sure if they're underrepresented or not.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? I don't think so. I didn't see a lot about the good parts of deception. I think there's good and bad to deception. This could also be an article more so just explaining about deception, so if that's the case it makes sense.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The Paul Bran example in the "In journalism" section. There is only one position taken on deceit in journalism.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Journalism, law, social research, philosophy, and computer security are underrepresented in my opinion. And I feel like deceit in relationships is over represented.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? That deceit is bad basically. I wish there was more on the viewpoint of how it could be good.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes and no. I feel like there isn't a lot of information out there but there has to be more.
 * Are the sources current? Not as many as there should be.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Most of these seem to be peer-reviewed articles and academic articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


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

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, but there are not many images. :(
 * Are images well-captioned? There are captions on 2 of the three images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not In my opinion.
 * Talk page discussion
 * Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was a question about adding a part about deception in sports.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class. Yes it's a part of 4 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? I think it's more all over the place. We've talked about deception in our daily lives and how it relates to us personally. We also haven't talked about deception in religion yet which I think would be something interesting to cover.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It still has some room to grow.
 * What are the article's strengths? I think definitely the romantic relationships section is a strength.
 * How can the article be improved? Possibly adding more ways deception is used, like in sports. And filling out more of the sparse sections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Deception

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because we've been talking a lot about deception in class and I find it interesting. It matters because I'm taking a class on it and deception is used everyday. I thought the beginning of the article looked great and then as you scrolled toward the bottom it was sparse.

Evaluate the article
This was a great article to read with very interesting points.

Overall I'd suggest

- adding more up-to-date sources (possibly ones within the last 5-10 years)

- Beefing up the journalism, law, social research, philosophy, and computer security sections would give this article more depth

- I saw on the Talk page that there was a mention of deception in sports... this could be a section worth considering

- I think that adding a whole section on nonverbal deception would be another great way to add depht to this article

- Definitley making the article more visually engaging would be helpful, there is a lot of text so any way to break it up would be nice