User:Lindseykoehn/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: Weighting filter (Weighting filter)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Weighting filters are so commonly used with noise measurements, so I was very surprised to find that the article on them has so little information. The A-weighting article has a ton more information and is a B-class instead of a C-class. I thought this was an article that could definitely encompass a lot more information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * For an article that is focused on the audio-aspects of weighting filters, the lead doesn't even mention this. It is definitely a definition of a weighting filter, however I think the contributors need to decide if this is an audio-based article or more broad, and then reflect that in the lead.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead is only a single sentence that defines a weighting filter.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise, but I think almost too much so. It doesn't give you any details as to what it is truly about or going to cover. It left me a little bit confused initially, as it talks about a "phenomenon" and then goes on to detail sound measurement.

Lead evaluation
Overall, I think there is a lot of improvement to be done with the lead. In my opinion, it seems weak and unclear in what direction the article was originally intended to go. In my opinion, the fact that it lacks anything about sound is an immediate issue.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content within this article is definitely interesting, but also a bit specific, with focuses in telecommunications and broadcasting.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, there is only one reference that is a link to the definition of dBa from 1996. There isn't any updated references. I also understand however that the idea of weighting isn't necessarily one that changes a lot. Therefore, while the information doesn't have to be recent, there should still be a lot more of it.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I think that this article is missing a ton of information on the other types of weighting. It briefly goes into the fact that there isn't only A-weighting, but doesn't do anything beyond this. There is a whole page dedicated to A-weighting, so I think this article needs to take its focus off of A-weighting so much and more onto weighting in general.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, I don't believe so.

Content evaluation
This content definitely seems like it was written by someone in telecommunications, as the bulk of the information focuses in on this. The content is also not as up to date as it should be.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * No, it has problems with neutrality as well as is very communication focused.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * When discussing telecommunications, the article talks about how much American appreciates ITU-R 468 noise weighting, as well as A-weighting being "better". It claims all this without having any references as to who said America doesn't appreciate it or that A-weighting is considered "better".
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I noticed.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, it attempts to validate some weighting filters over others without having any resources to back any of the claims up. It seems opinion-based in these ways.

Tone and balance evaluation
The article definitely has problems with neutrality, however, I think this is rooted in it's lack of resources. Some of the writing is based solely on the writer's opinion without any references to back it up. Introducing references would allow the writer to make statements that are generally accepted and have support, instead of making claims.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, there is only one source from 1996 that defines dBA.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * This one resource is a good resource because it is from the Glossary of Telecommunication Terms, which means it is likely a widely accepted definition of a term. However, it is a telecommunication-based.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, the one source is from 1996.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not that I know of.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes it did.

Sources and references evaluation
The references are the biggest downfall of this article I believe, and likely the reason that it is a C-class article. With only one reference, the only part of the writing that has support is the definition of dBA. This is an issue as it can lead readers to question the validity of the rest of the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written and not difficult to read, however, that's coming from an audiology perspective. An example of this is when they describe loudness measurements. While they do a good job of it, that is likely also because I know what sensitivity to a frequency and attenuation is. I believe it would benefit this article to even break things down more and make them that much easier to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I noticed, the article does seem well-written in this way.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * While I think the organization isn't bad, I think it is lacking in a lot. It is organized as audio applications and other applications, with loudness measurements, telecommunications, environmental noise measurement, and audio reproduction and broadcasting equipment all falling under audio applications. I think that elaborating on different topics while also combining the communication topics would benefit the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article has two images. One of the different weighting filters and the other of a comparison of hearing in the human ear compared to an A-weighted filter. I do believe these enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * I'm not sure if it's something that I am doing wrong in how I'm viewing the article, however, I don't see any captions until I click on the picture. I think that this is an issue because the pictures will likely not enhance the understanding of the topic to someone who doesn't know what they are without a description.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they are located in areas that make sense with the content of them.

Images and media evaluation
Overall, I think that the two images are good, however need captions with better explanations. I also think that more pictures could benefit 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?
 * The most recent comment was in 2013, with the bulk of the conversations being from 2005. The most recent comments revolve around the idea of getting rid of the page or rewriting it, as the information is largely incorrect and bias.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * C-class and it is a part of the WikiProject Professional sound production
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This Wikipedia article discusses the topic through a telecommunications lens, versus the more broad audio lens.

Talk page evaluation
It quickly became clear to me that this article has been inactive for a long time with only a few more recent comments calling for the deletion or rewriting of the page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The overall status of the page is C-class with a mid-importance rating.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are in it's insights into telecommunications and basic definitions of some comments.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * In my opinion, the first step in improving this article is taking the focus off of telecommunications and onto weighting filter with plenty of references to make it more reliable.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I believe that this article is underdeveloped. It has an okay base, but I think it needs a lot of help to become a more clear, unbiased, educational tool.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article definitely needs a lot of work and time put into it. It has an okay basis, but in order to become more highly rated, it will need a lot more information and references, in my opinion.

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: Talk:Weighting filter