User:L0c40796/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The article I am evaluating: Right to privacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it relates closely to the dissertation, I am currently working on in the D. Sc. Cybersecurity program at Marymount University. My dissertation working title is National Data and Privacy Protection and I am looking at the current privacy laws on the books and draft polices to address my research questions. In addition, I selected this article since I believe as the title states, privacy is a right.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Disclaimer: The article I selected has a header banner that calls out that the article has multiple issues and asks for help with improving the article.

Lead section

The lead section of the article starts with page redirects, one redirect from Invasion of Privacy. The second redirect is from The Right to Privacy, which brings other pages to the Right to privacy. The lead section starts with a powerful introduction statement that describes the topic. Further, the description in the lead does not provide a centralized state of the contents contained within the article. Thus, additional details are missing from this section, and it leaves the lead section dense but missing vital points contained within the article.

Content
Content for this article contains information relevant to the topic; however, some sections have only a single sentence as content. Parts of the text have resources update within the last year, and others have not been updated with privacy information. There is missing content with banners stating the associated section needs expansion and saying you can help by adding it—no mention of the Wikipedia equity gaps. The topics contain historical records related to the subject, but not underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance
The article provides a neutral point of view on the topic; much of the claims made in writing are based on the right to privacy. The viewpoint expressed in the article underrepresent details of privacy laws in different countries. The article does not try and persuade the reader in any direction for or against the right of privacy. The opposition section brings into the article points from resources that fail to believe in privacy rights.

Sources and References
Article sources and references are not reliably provided throughout the article. Sections have entries with no citations or references despite providing information that appears to come from reliable sources. In addition, some of the links presented in the early sections of the article have broken links and links that point to outdated sources. Areas in the report that contains citations and references provide a diverse spectrum from where the details are being sourced.

Organization and writing quality
The article is an easy read but fails to provide a clear path for the reader along the right to privacy. Free from grammatical and spelling errors, the article is broken down into sections reflecting major points supporting the areas.

Images and Media
The entry contains one image in the lead section and contains the proper caption and cite from the source and related topic. The image adheres to Wikipedia’s requirements, but could be relocated to the section of the article that aligns with the image.

Talk page discussion
Discussions from the talk page question some of the references and the fact that no references are present where the poster ask for someone to find the proper reference. Most of the talk information is outdated and have not been updated within the last two years, before my first entry on the talk page. The article is part of a WikiProject.

Overall impressions
The overall status of the article is a work in progress as it has a framework and good foundation from which to grow the article. The strength of the article is pulling in all appropiateearea s egarding right to privacy but has some missing content which have not been expanded. The article can be improved by updating the sources and provided correct source links for current sources mis-linked. Further improvements can be applied to the article by expanding on the sections that have single sentences or a few sentences but lack refernces or cover expanded details on the topic. This article is underdeveloped, but can change to a well-developed article with updated content, proper sources, and sections expanded to give the reader a well rounded view of the topic right to privacy.