User:Mlandeka/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Speaker Recognition
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because of its relevance to our everyday lives. Also, being that it is a fairly new innovation, there is likely a ton of research to be done on it.

Lead
The beginning of the article includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic stating that “Speaker recognition is the identification of a person from characteristics of voices”. It goes further to differentiate other terms related to voice recognition. The Lead also includes an overarching view of the article's major sections by mentioning a brief background on the topic before delving in. The Lead quickly goes over the difference between speaker recognition and speaker diarisation, but fails to go into depth as they did for speaker verification v. speaker identification. That being said, the Lead is concise because it does not go into detail on some topics until later on in the article.

Content
Based on all of the articles and notes referenced, the content of the article is relevant to the topic as it covers many aspects of speech recognition. The references in this article come from the years 2003, 2011, and 2015. Despite these being a bit outdated, the notes that are referenced throughout the article come from years dating as recently as 2018. That being said, it would be of interest to us to examine more recent articles. I feel as though the contents of this article is relevant as the points build off of one another, but as mentioned, it would be a good first step to include more up-to-date articles.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral because it is very factual. There are no words involved that imply bias towards anything. Rather, the article defines and informs. I feel as though the text is well-rounded in the sense that viewpoints are neither overrepresented nor underrepresented because each topic is evaluated to a similar extent. Because the article is not arguing something, but rather informing, the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources and References
The article I found is chock full of citations and resources found by the community. That being said, I also noticed a few instances in which the writers included information followed by a superscript stating “citation needed”. It made me wonder if the information that they provided is accurate, and where/how they were getting their information in the first place. The sources that are stated, however, reflect an array of topics about speech recognition, from legal implications to how it affects technology. As previously mentioned, the references in this article come from the years 2003, 2011, and 2015. Although I find them relevant, it is important to keep information on Wikipedia as updated as possible by referencing newer articles. After clicking on the links provided, I can see that they are all functioning websites and resources. That being said, they do not seem as reliable as they can be based on the graphics and advertisements that go along with them. Usually, reliable sources come from verified websites, and these do not seem to be very trustworthy.

Organization
In my opinion, the article well-written because it is split into several different sections that are each written clearly and concisely. As I was reading the article I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well-organized as it is broken down into sections that seem to flow into one another and builds ideas based off of the previous section.

Images and Media
The article does not include any images that enhance understanding of the topic

Checking the talk page
Overall, when I opened the Talk page I felt a sense of chaos and disorganization. Behind the scenes on the Talk page, there are conversations going on from 2005-2006, as well as a more updated resource from 2019. The users are going a bit more into depth about the definition of voice recognition. I also noticed many conversations that have been started but have not gone anywhere once presented. This article is a part of two projects, WikiProject Computer Science, as well as WikiProject Mass Surveillance. I do not think that the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class because as we can see, everyone’s ideas are spread throughout the Talk page and are rebutted or accepted by others.

Overall impressions
Overall, the article I chose seems a bit outdated and needs to include articles from recent years. The strengths of the article are that they have a solid base of information that it would like to provide. Also, it is structured nicely because the ideas flow one into the other and it is not biased. Again, the article can be improved on its accuracy because I’m sure there is new information that can be found that is more up-to-date. In summary, the article well-developed, it just needs a bit of a reboot resource-wise as well as images that should be included.