User:Mbruce21/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dublin Core

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because it relates largely to the course content. When it comes to metadata, descriptive metadata, metadata creation, and cataloging, Dublin Core--and  the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative--is a huge player. Dublin Core matters because it provides a standardized element set through which to describe a document or resource of some sort, particularly a digital resource. This is necessary because it allows for a standardization of properties and how they are used across the board when it comes to describing and cataloging an information resource. At first glance, the article looks okay. However, considering it is a Start Class article, there is probably more here to improve upon and edit than initially meets the eye. My first instinct, is that this rating is simply because the article is not detailed enough. The article seems like a typical, basic overview of the Dublin Core element set. It is not particularly descriptive, but does not seem to be lacking any vital information either. For example, it lists the 15 elements that makeup the Dublin Core which would be a huge oversight to not include! Overall, it is probably lacking in detail, outside sources beyond the Dublin Core website, and clarification in certain areas due to jargon.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The Lead Section is probably one of the strongest areas of the article. It is very concise, only containing a few paragraphs. I like how the lead section begins with a single sentence which in and of itself defines the term Dublin Core. With just that sentence the reader can understand exactly what Dublin Core is and what it is used for. Also helpful is that the first paragraph of the lead section explains the institutions responsible for the creation and maintenance of the Dublin Core metadata element set as well its formal standardizations from different institutions so that its elements can be found and corroborated elsewhere. While the Lead Section does contain all this information which is helpful for forming a basic grasp on the Dublin Core, some of this information is not repeated elsewhere in the article. As the Lead Section should act in many ways as a summary for the article ahead, it would be prudent to ensure that all information included in the Lead Section is sufficiently addressed later in the article. While the DCMES' standardization by other institutions is touched on in the article, the second paragraph, explaining that the element set can be used to describe digital resources as well as physical resources, is a description of the DCMES' use, which is not sufficiently explained in the following article. It is mentioned in the background section that the Dublin Core was developed to be used to describe a wide range of resources, however the article, if it is going to include this second paragraph in the Lead Section, might benefit from a subsequent section entitled "uses". With that being said, the information included in the third paragraph of the Lead Section may be better suited in a "uses" section as well. Finally, in regard to the Lead Section, while it does a good job of being concise, and presenting the key concepts of the Dublin Core and what it is, it does not necessarily include a brief description of all the article's major sections.

Content

All content included in the article seems largely relevant to the topic at hand. The only section of questionable content in terms of inclusion was the "Example of use [and mention] by WebCite". For me, this section seemed to contain an entirely out of context and ambiguous quotation from WebCite that did not add anything to my understanding of Dublin Core and how to use it, as the preceding section does (by providing examples of how to use Dublin Core in a written coded format). Therefore, the content here seems underdeveloped and unnecessary. If kept, it needs significant explanation added, as currently it has no meaning to me and may be the same for many other readers. Most content included seems to be up-to-date. For example, the link provided for the DCMI Metadata Terms does in fact link to the most recently issued specification from DCMI for the Dublin Core Metadata Terms (updated January 20, 2020). However, this is a frequently updated resource, as all Dublin Core specifications are, so it would be prudent to check all links for the article and replace any with the most recently updated versions. While the content is relevant and deals with the topic at hand, as I stated earlier in my critique of the Lead Section, the article would benefit from a "uses" section outlining for what purposes and goals the DCMES might be used in a variety of fields and contexts.

Tone and Balance

The tone is also one of this articles strong points. There were no noticeable biases when describing the DCMI and most sentences seemed purely informational in tone. There was no attempt made by the author(s) to describe Dublin Core as a particularly good or bad element set over others or as a preference of the authors' in anyway. In fact, the article is quite dry and lacks personality, which in this case is high praise and adds to its reliability. It can sometimes come across as pedantic. However, as the goal of this source is to ensure that any reader can understand the topic of Dublin Core (regardless of their previous knowledge or experience), that can also be seen as a positive. If anything, the source could do well to describe even more than it does, in order to make sure nothing is left to interpretation or misunderstanding. There was at least one area tagged as "clarification needed" and more sentences could fall into that trap. In other words, I think the article is fair and unbiased, it does well to explain, however where it falls short in tone, is that not everything is explained as fully as needed, and this is probably more due to lack of content, which in the end, this article could use more of. There was one sentence, which uses very direct and dictatory language: "Use Audience, Provenance and RightsHolder only when using Qualified Dublin Core". This sentence could be rewritten to be less as if the author is telling the reader how those elements should be used. Instead maybe it should be written that those elements should only be used when using Qualified Dublin Core. As a result of the article's overall neutrality, it appears very balanced as well. There does not seem to be too much attention given to any one topic or viewpoint.

Sources and References

In regard to the sources provided, they are all current and the links work on all the ones that I checked. So, in that respect, they are good sources. While the majority of the sources come from the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's website, which is the creator of the Dublin Core and is therefore the foremost authority on the Dublin Core and all of its iterations and specifications, this would be considered a primary source for this particular article. Therefore, while it is a good source to use the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative's site, it is "biased" as a result of its nature as a primary source. It would be beneficial for this wikipedia article to have more sources which discuss the Dublin Core from an academic or scholarly perspective; what it is, its uses, its pitfalls, its strengths, etc. Therefore, this article needs more secondary sources to round out its content. What it does provide is a link to the webpages for the other institutions mentioned in the Lead Section that have made the Dublin Core a standard, so these are particularly helpful, and one of the positives when it comes to the article's sources and references. Lastly, in regard to sources and references, while many sentences are cited, many are not. It is typical in this article for a paragraph to start with a cited sentence, and thus we can be sure as readers that this fact is backed up. However, many paragraphs are not cited beyond the first sentence. Surely, there are facts/pieces of concrete information listed here that can and should be cited. This mostly occurs in the Qualified Dublin Core section of the article.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is concise. It is short and most sentences are straightforward, to the point, and written in the active voice. Where the writing falls flat is its use of jargon and lack of explanation. While it is good the article is short, this conciseness combined with a lack of explanation can lead to some difficulties in understanding. I think it could benefit overall by a little more explanation in certain areas. As I said, while it is nice that it is concise, some sentences can be difficult to digest due to high levels of jargon in a short amount of time. While it is not impossible to understand, it does affect the reading quality and slow down the process slightly. The article is broken down somewhat logically, and starts reasonably with a background/history section and ending with a notable applications section so the reader can discover some real-life applications of Dublin Core. Where its breakdown is slightly puzzling is the encoding samples. I believe those could be there own section and not a subsection of the Levels of the standard. On top of this, as I had previously stated, the article would benefit from a "Uses" section, probably before or directly after the background.

Images and Media

Only image included is the DCMI logo. The DCMI encoding examples could be considered an image or media as well. Neither add much to the article in terms of visual appeal or design. However, the encoding examples are a highly useful and provide a visual way to understand the way one might encounter DCMI metadata terms being used in application. So, the inclusion of that form of media is highly successful. The one image that is shown (the DCMI logo) is properly captioned and at least gives the reader a visual queue to connect with Dublin Core. That way, if they decided to do any research on their own or look for the website, they can use the logo to help them ensure that they are in the right place. If the image is selected more information can be found regarding its meaning and design. A helpful additional image might be a picture of one of the elements in the table in which the Dublin Core website presents them with the extra information such as the content note, so the reader can familiarize themselves with how the elements are presented.

Talk Page Discussion

The article is part of two WikiProjects: Computing and Libraries. For computing it has been rated as Start Class and Mid-Importance. For libraries it has been rated as Start Class and Low-Importance. For being such a low level article, and in need of significant additions and edits, the article has very little communication. I suppose that is why it needs a lot of improvement. It seems the majority of conversation previously dealt with broken links. It seems those links have been resolved. Other conversations include adding new facts and sources, eliminating personal opinions or unverifiable facts, and copyright and trademarks. It seems from conversation that most users are aware that the article could do with a significant overhaul in terms of content but do not have the time nor do they prioritize this article. It has clearly improved significantly just in the fact that many of the broken links have been fixed over time. There is not much thorough conversation going on about the content and Dublin Core as a concept, although there is a conversation thread about the pervasiveness or usage, which was exactly what I thought the page was lacking. This conversation started around a user not understanding where it is used and why they never come across it as a web designer. This was responded to with a comment outlining the main purpose and and professional fields where it is used. It ended with a comment indicating that an example could be added to the article, and I agree. I think this thread gets to the core of the issues with this article: its lack of information on how the Dublin Core Metadata Element set is actually used.

Overall Impressions

The article, as a Start Class article, could do with some significant improvement. Its strongest aspects are its Lead Section, its tone and balance and its overall conciseness. The Lead does a good job immediately explaining what the Dublin Core is and it is brief and easy to understand. The article also does a good job remaining neutral and unbiased and rarely does the reader feel they are being given a personal opinion or perspective on Dublin Core and its qualities. Finally, the article is extremely short and concise, which is good to continue in this style of writing, however, it is to an extent limiting the content as well which is one of this article's biggest weaknesses. This article could do with further explanation to cut though the jargon, more examples, and a "uses" section to explain in what fields and how the Dublin Core Metadata element set is utilized and applied. This article would be improved by including a "uses" section, by further explanation, and through the inclusion of more secondary sources. It may also be beneficial to include some information which discusses the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of Dublin Core as seen by professionals in the field, and provide all these viewpoints to help build understanding of the element set, its faults, and what it is aiming to achieve in its particular design. As a result of this, I would argue that the article is significantly underdeveloped, and could due with more more content regarding use as well as strengths and weakness of the sets as seen by differing perspectives with secondary, academic or scholarly sources, to build a more well-rounded and robust understanding of the Dublin Core.