User:MaxiiBoii/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

The article about the Chinese room experiment.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

It is an experiment that we've seen in class and I thought that it would be interesting to evaluate its Wikipedia page.

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.)

Lead section:

It has a very good introductory sentence. It's maybe too detailed for a lead section, with some information that maybe could have been implemented in other sections of the article. The lead section does contain a good table of content.

Content:

The content of the article itself is very in-depth, giving good insight on the subject. It does however have certain sections dedicated to other subjects, like the Turing test. This probably is not necessary, as the reader can simply follow the link to the wikipedia page about the Turing test instead of reading it on the Chinese room article.

Tone and Balance:

Describing an experiment, the tone is extremely neutral and the author does not try to persuade the reader about the validity of the experiment in any way, staying neutral about it.

Sources and references:

The article has good referencing ethics. It does contain some direct stations from computer scientists and philosophers, but they are relevant to the subject. The article cites a lot of different sources, most of them being published in the 80s and 90s, which is relatively old. A large amount of these references were written by John Searle himself, the creator of the Chinese Room experiment and can therefore be considered reliable sources. Nearly the entirety of the references are books, so it is not possible to check if any links work correctly, but the few pdf files that have been linked work correctly.

Organization and writing quality:

The article isn't the easiest to read, due to the complexity of the subject, but its information remains concise and is well written. Being quite a complex subject, the authors have done a good job at making the article easy to read by breaking down the subject in its smaller categories.

Images and Media:

The article only contains a couple of images, one being an image of John Searle. The other image is a visualization of the Turing test and it does help the reader understand more clearly the topic. The Turing test image was well cited, but the John Searle one does not contain any information about its origins.

Talk page and discussion:

The majority of the talk page is about the validity of the experiment. A lot of users are arguing about it, but they do not comment on the quality of the article itself. One user mentions the possibility of rearranging a couple of paragraphs to make the information more fluent to read and understand. The discussions talk about the weaknesses of the argument, similarly to how we did in class.

Overall impression:

Overall, the article feels like it's very well made. It gives very good information about the subject and it cites well its references. This article could be improved by adding more images to interact more with the reader. The lead section is also quite lengthy and could probably be shortened to make it more concise and relevant for an introduction. Overall, the article is very well made and feels complete.

~