User:Kyutsune/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Evaluating the CSCW (computer supported cooperative work) wiki page.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Chosen to evaluate this article because it is part of the CSCW assignment.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead

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


 * 1) Yes, the first sentence defines what CSCW means and followed by when the term CSCW was created.

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

2. There is a table of contents containing the titles that leads to all of the major sections for the article.

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

3.Yes, the lead goes more in depth to the history of the CSCW and why CSCW was created as well as provided terms that is not present in the other sections of the article.

· Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

4. The lead section is bit overly detailed might need to break up the information to separate sections or summarize the information more.

2. Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions:

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


 * 1) Yes all of the topics and sections are related to CSCW

· Is the content up-to-date?

2. I don't think the content is up to date since many of the sources are in the 1990s. There might be some recent topics that might need to be added that we haven't gone over.

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

3. I feel like there is too much content within the article. Especially the CSCW in gaming section, might not need its whole own section to talk about. There might be too much information going into the CSCW gaming section.

· Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

4.Yes the article goes over the underrepresented female population in CSCW.

3. Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

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


 * 1) What I read through, it doesn't seem heavily biased towards a particular position.

· Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

2.Maybe the article should go more in depth towards issues from different cultural backgrounds?

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

3. No, the article seems neutral in their stance and explain thoroughly for both sides. For example in the Gender and CSCW section.

4. Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions

· Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.


 * 1) Many of the sentences are cited properly, and I don't see any sentences that has a "citation needed" on it.

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

2. Yes, the sources provided are thorough and gives context to the topic.

· Are the sources current?

3. No, many of the sources are in the 1990s

· Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

4.Yes for both

· Check a few links. Do they work?

5. Yes, the ones that I have tried worked.

5. Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions

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


 * 1) The article is well written and easy to read having broken down sections to make it more understandable.

· Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

2. None that I read.

Grammar/spelling is good

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

3. The article is well organized with broken down sections going over major points.

6. Organization evaluation

Images and Media

Guiding questions

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

1. Lack of images with only one image related to the topic of matrix for the paper

· Are images well-captioned?

2. The one image is captioned but not much detailed.

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

3.Yes

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

4.N/A

7. Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

· What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

1.Previous conversations in the talk section saying that "the key role of ethnographic studies of cooperative work practices in natural settings is not represented."

Missing references

Section to add like: list of CSCW software

External linked were modified

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

2. For WikiProject Internet, Computing, and Business the rating for quality scale is Start-class and all three of them have not been received a rating for the importance scale.

8. Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

· What is the article's overall status?


 * 1) The article might need to shorten a bit on the amount of sections and information provided particularly in the lead section. Also maybe add more pictures to make the article look less text heavy. But I think the article is overall good. Maybe 8/10?

· What are the article's strengths?

2. The article provides well in depth in the topic of CSCW with plenty of sources to look at.

· How can the article be improved?

3. Maybe more information on issues for different cultural backgrounds?

Might need to remove some sections to add more recent topics on CSCW

· How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?4. The article is well-developed.