User:Madssnake/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: Security hacker
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article through the C-class category articles, with the intent of finding an article related to our project. I chose to look in the Science WikiProject portal, and found this article about security and hacking under the information science section that I thought best suited both my interests and this project about Privacy.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
This article's lead starts off with a clear definition of a security hacker, which is also the topic of the article. It is a concise lead that covers all clarifications and definitions one may need to know about security hackers, and previews some of the contents of the article. Not all of the major article sections are mentioned in the lead, though, as it focuses more on clarifying the subject's meaning and connotations before diving into the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content relevant to the topic, presenting various types and classes of security hackers, a rundown of the history involved, types of "attacks" a hacker can make, notable criminal hackers and consequences, and security hacking portrayals in the media. The article is up to date, with many editors adding changes in the earlier part of this year. There is a fairly important section on techniques that is not completely sourced, which Wikipedia gives a warning about. The media section also, while fairly long, is a section that is probably missing a lot of components when it comes to lists all of the media that hackers have appeared in. There also is not much dealing with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations, as the article merely lists appearances without much consideration of where it came from.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
This article is a neutral article, stating facts and how processes work among hackers. When discussing how the media tends to portray hackers as villains, there is a follow up note about white hat hackers and balanced out hackers' "morals". There is not attempt at persuading the reader to favoring any type of hacker, as they all have a balanced amount of content, and the information is all neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
There is a section of the article that is not sourced, but the other sources (which are many) are well documented and frequently listed. The sources and further reading citations range approximately 20 years, which could be both current and not so current because of the rapidly growing change of the digital world. There is a diverse group of sources, both author wise and media wise, covering a wide range of topics related to security hacking. Eternal links and Wikipedia links both work as well.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article does a good job of not spending too much read time on any particular subject, and rather gives a thorough but brief introduction to each of its sub topics and content areas. It is easy to read, with the intent of using media and real life examples of clarifying definitions of security hacking. Grammar and spelling also has been edited correctly, and in the edit history you can see many edits to make the article flow smoothly. It is also well organized, beginning with common types and methods and then going into real world examples. There are also a lot of other articles linked for the reader if they want to expand their knowledge on a particular section's content.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article only includes one image, which is placed in the history section despite the contents being mentioned in the media section. I don't really think the images contributes to understanding the topic, especially because it is not placed in the best section for the content. It is well captioned, though, and links to articles about the content of the image.

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 has a lot of semi-protected edit requests, with some suggestions done and some not done. There are some sections debating the topic, but not much response to those concerns being brought up. The article is part of the WikiProject Computer Security, as well as in scope for WikiProject Crime, with both giving it a C-Class rating. It also has top importance for the Computer Security project.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, this is a useful article for learning about different types of security hackers and methods used, with examples of media portrayals to help further understanding of the topic. It also clarifies misunderstandings that people may have about hackers, and has a good, neutral tone when discussing contents. I think it could be improved by not emphasizing the media list section as much, because it will always need to be updated and hard to add everything with just a few editors. Overall, this article is nicely developed and organized, without missing any major content spaces. Once the section on techniques, which is quite important, is sourced, the article will be completed.

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: