User:Lolabaylo/Evaluate an Article

User:Lolabaylo/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: Information Privacy
 * I chose this article because I am researching privacy topics with the Privacy Literacy Project.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does have a concise and clear introductory sentence. The lead briefly touched upon the article's major sections, although it does not mention information types, which is extensively written about in one section.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic of information privacy: it covers information types that are vulnerable to privacy breaches and the authorities that regulate information privacy. The subsection, "Authorities," seems underdeveloped: there are only hyperlinks for privacy laws and privacy organizations by countries; no textual information and explanation is provided. Overall, the sections seem imbalanced: some have extensive information provided, while others only have a list of hyperlinks. The content mostly seems to be up to date: it references studies done in the 2010s and lists recently created information privacy laws. The article does not address historically underrepresented populations.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Overall, the article seems to have a neutral tone; for example, the subsection, "United States Safe Harbor Program and passenger name record issues" objectively presents the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles program and describes its policies. There are some aspects of the subject that are underrepresented. For example, the subsection, "Authorities," seems underdeveloped, while the subsection, "Information types," has extensive information.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Some facts in the article do not seem to be backed up by sources. For example, the "Financial Information Type" subsection contains a paragraph of information, but has not citations, only hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles. Many sources seem to be reliable secondary sources: they come from academic journals and books. However, some sources are from news publications and websites that do not seem as reliable and unbiased (such as The Register). Sources seem relatively up to date: many were published in the 2010s, but some were published in the early 2000s. The links do work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is generally concise and easy to understand. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. I think the organization is not very intuitive: it is not broken down exactly into the main points discussed in the Lead (e.g. how information is collected, public expectations of information privacy, how fields such as data/computer security design software to address information privacy).


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images included in the article.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Many conversations discuss the subjectivity of this Wikipedia article: editors suggest changes to "commanding" and "biased" language to more neutral wording. This article is part of the WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Internet, and WikiProject Mass surveillance. Wikipedia discusses this topic with a neutral, academic tone.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

This article is rated as C-class on all of its projects' quality scales. I think this article has a strong Lead that is concise and easily understandable. I think the article could be improved by fleshing out some of the subsections more; many sections are underdeveloped. I think this article is not as complete as it could be.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: