User:Kzw53/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: LastPass
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I choose this article to evaluate since I am a Cybersecurity Major, and this pertains to what interests me the most. When looking at the field of Cybersecurity, is important to know that every account needs a different password. With that being said, it’s very hard for users to understand that they should not reuse their password; and keeping track of all the different passwords is very difficult.

Lead
This article starts by giving a general overview of what LastPass is, stating that it is a software that is free to a specific point; you can use a lot of the features for free but they’re limited unless if you were to pay to access the premium features. While the lead overall is relatively weak, it does give them minimal information and is to the point.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * For this article, the lead does not include an introductory sentence, it just gets straight to the point saying what type of software last pass is. When looking at the introductory paragraph, it does concisely and clearly describe the overall articles topic, although it can be a little scattered in the last two sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. It is not mentioned that there is going to be an overview, history, reception, and security issues.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the lead includes information that is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. This can be seen when it talks for a brief sentence about bookmarklets.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * While the lead is concise, it lacks detail and an overview of the content that is going to be reviewed.

Lead evaluation
Overall after reading the lead, it falls short by not giving the reader enough information. While the article does go into depth about the security issues, it doesn’t go into much more information after that. I found that the overall article seemed a little bit disorganized, and tended to go on tangents.

Content
The content of the article is minimal at best. The only time that the article goes into depth is during the brief overview, and the security issues. Besides that, in every other section, the sentences are choppy, written as if part of a PowerPoint slide, and are overall very scattered.


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the article has been updated since it includes information from 2019.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * From a brief glance it does not seem like there is any content that is missing or 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?
 * The article does not deal with on a Wikipedia‘s equity gap‘s. It is not represent any topics that are related historically underrepresented or otherwise populations or topics.

Content evaluation
The security section of the entire article is phenomenal. It goes into extreme detail about the different security flaws that were found, and how they were mitigated. While I wish that there was more elaboration upon these, there is not much more that you can say without repeating yourself.

Tone and Balance
The overall tone of the article is very formal and informational.


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is written in a neutral manner, it does not take any sides and presents all the facts with no opinions attached.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Since this article is on a technical subject, there are no claims that seem to be heavily biased towards a particular position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As I stated earlier, the viewpoints are not overrepresented or under presented send there’s no opinion.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Being a technical article, there is no opinion or attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Tone and balance evaluation
As said earlier, the tone of this article is extremely professional and factual. Beyond that you could say the tone is neutral, it has no opinion swaying the audience one way or the other.

Sources and References
For this article, there are a plethora of sources and references. By looking at this briefly it seems to be organized, and relatively kept up-to-date. Although it is clear to see that there are different citation types being used for each source. This could be due to the fact that people from all over the world are editing the same article.


 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, it looks like all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, it looks like the sources come from reliable material that know a great deal about the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are current within the last two years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors this means that they include magazine articles, and scholarly articles.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, of the links I checked, they do work.

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, it seems like the sources are reliable, and come from a plethora of different sources. They all focus on the topic at hand, and help with some of the background of the article. Along with us, they also help show that there have been different data breaches in the past and how they have been mitigated.

Organization
The overall organization of the article as stated previously is scattered. At times it feels like there are in-depth evaluation’s of the topic at hand, while other times it feels like some of the material could be from a PowerPoint slide.


 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written it is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It does not seem like the article has any spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, the article is not well organized. While it may be broken down into sections, each section varies and level of detail and sometimes does not make sense.

Organization evaluation
The organization of this article could be better, and even some work on being more clear and concise. By this, I mean that it doesn’t seem like all the information is there with the amount of sources that are provided at the bottom of the page.

Images and Media
There were almost no images in this article. The only image that can be seen is the LastPass logo.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article only includes one image to have the understanding of the topic; this image is again the logo of the company.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is not captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it looks like the image adheres to Wikipedia copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
Since this is more of a technical article, there are not many images that you could add to it. Thus, I believe that the images that are there are sufficient enough for the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page is relatively detailed, and shows that this article has just recently been created with in the last few years. It also includes more sections would be beneficial for the Wiki page.

Overall impressions
This seems like a general forum where people were discussing the best ways to add new material to the article.


 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article was rated as a start class project, that was low importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It was able to discuss security breaches in great depth.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The LastPass page could be improved by adding more sections, going into more detail on sections other than security breaches, and adding a little bit more history.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would assess this article as being under developed, and needing more work.

Overall evaluation
This is a good start for a Wikipedia article, but most definitely needs to be expanded upon.

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: