User:Manar.m2733/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: Author profiling
 * I chose to evaluate this article because the title, "Author Profiling", really grabbed my attention. I already had an idea of what it means to "profile" someone, but I had never heard it in terms of an author. I had assume it meant to evaluate the characteristics of an author and connect that to the authors work, and notice if the author has a certain bias towards the subject they are writing about based on their own personal characteristics. I was intrigued to read about this and see if my initial understanding of "Author Profiling" was correct.

Lead

 * There is a lead introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. The article itself does not get into the topic of the article very much, but in the beginning of the article, the author provides a sentence defining what author profiling is. There is no description of the author's major section, there is just that one sentence that explains what author profiling is. After that, the article starts off with an introduction on Automatic Authorship Identification, which is what author profiling falls under. The lead does not include information that it not present in the article. In other words, topics that are mentioned in the lead are briefly mentioned later on in the article. The lead is concise, but considering the very little information provided in the rest of the article, the lead can seem too detailed compared to the rest of the article.
 * There is a lead introductory sentence that describes the article's topic. The article itself does not get into the topic of the article very much, but in the beginning of the article, the author provides a sentence defining what author profiling is. There is no description of the author's major section, there is just that one sentence that explains what author profiling is. After that, the article starts off with an introduction on Automatic Authorship Identification, which is what author profiling falls under. The lead does not include information that it not present in the article. In other words, topics that are mentioned in the lead are briefly mentioned later on in the article. The lead is concise, but considering the very little information provided in the rest of the article, the lead can seem too detailed compared to the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic and is up-to-date. I feel like there is not enough content to identify whether or not it would not belong in the article. If there was more written, it would be more obvious what does not belong in the article or not, but given the brief text, there is not a strong foundation of what is to is not related to the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and the author's informative text does not seem to be biased or subject to a particular position. The author does mention that Automatic Authorship identification is "a difficult task", although that seems to be a general comment towards to level of difficulty rather than a negative criticism about the topic. The article does not necessarily attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, but the little information provided about the topic does not really show readers why this topic is relevant or what would make this topic interesting among other topics to read about. Sometimes, saying less is sufficient when writing an article, but in this case, on such a specific and new topic, it would have been more intriguing to readers had there been more information provided on it.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

In this article, there are many sources provided. Each fact stated is backed up by a source, and some facts have multiple sources, making it more credible. The sources are thorough and their main topics range from what the article is generally about, to sources about smaller details in the article. For example, there is a source titled, "A survey of modern authorship attribution methods", which is what the general idea of the article is about; and there is a source titled, "Effects of Age and Gender on Blogging", which is a more specific sub-topic the author of this article mentioned. The sources do appear to be current, and the links for them all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is easy to read and as someone with little background information on this topic, it was easy to follow and understand. The first paragraph was a bit confusing due to the specific detail given about who the first person to interact in Automatic Authorship Identification. The author used new terminology, "detect quantitative stylistic differences" which lead to a lack of understanding on my end. It appears as though if that statement were to be used later on in the article, it would make more sense, as one does not normally expect complex details regarding the topic in the introduction of an article. Also, the author uses the term, "PAN", which is specifically related to this topic and does not explain it. This also could have been improved by stating what "PAN" is or some additional information about it that could be relevant to someone who is new the general idea of the author and has no background knowledge of it. There are no grammatical or spelling errors.The article is well-organized. It does seem unfinished, as the title of it is "Author Profiling", yet the topic of "author profiling" is briefly mentioned towards the end. There are good transitions between Automatic Authorship Identification, and author profiling- which falls under the scope of Automatic Authorship Identification. For an article that is unfinished and expected to be added more onto, it is broken down appropriately. But in the case that this is the final product, the title would be misleading since the information that is supposed to be talked about in the title is briefly mentioned in the article.

Images and Media


There are no images included in this article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are no conversations going on about this article. However, this article is involved in educational projects (such as this one). It was also used to as a collaborative to improve linguistic coverage on Wikipedia. It is rated as start-class on the project's quality scale. This rating seems to be appropriate as there is a lot of room for improvement in this article and it serves as a good opportunity for educational platforms to display what an article can possibly look like starting off.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * This article's overall status seems to be incomplete, in my opinion. The strengths are that it is easy to read. As someone without any actual prior knowledge of this topic, it was not difficult to follow what the author was saying. This article can be improved a lot by simply adding more to it. By looking at the number of existing sources there are that can be related to this topic, there is a lot more that can be written about Author Profiling. I would assess the article's completeness as poorly developed, only because due to how little is written, it is difficult to see where other problems may lie- there is simply not enough writing to criticize more specific issues in this article.

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: