User:Polarbears123/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (1)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Information privacy
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article was chosen for week 2's assignment.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * This article includes an introductory sentence that gives a descriptive preview of what the article's topic is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a list of contents that provides a preview of the article's major sections. However, there is no description about the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The article doesn't mention much about the issues of data privacy.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * All information seems to be included in the article and the lead is concise.

Lead evaluation
The lead is very organized, descriptive and well-written.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic and includes relevant categories.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up to date, with its last update being August 17, 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There doesn't seem to be any missing content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article doesn't seem to deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the main topic and only includes information that is relevant to what is discussed in this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article isn't neutral because there doesn't seem to be a balance when it comes to describing the subtopics in this article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are claims that appear to be biased towards describing the negative effects of internet privacy.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are over represented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, the article seems to persuade the reader to consider the negative effects of information privacy.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone in this article seems biased towards a specific side and doesn't present the information in a neutral manner.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are some facts in the article that aren't backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are very thorough and reflect on the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources are current, but there are a few sources that are kind of old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The article doesn't seem to include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work.

Sources and references evaluation
There is a huge variety of sources. However, there are claims that need to be backed up.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written and concise. The manner in which this article is written makes it very easy to read and comprehend.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some grammatical errors, such as the misuse of quotes and periods.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is very well-organized by subtopics and is very easy to find specific information.

Organization evaluation
The structure of the article is really good. However, there are some grammatical errors in the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are no images in this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * There are no images in this article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * There are no images in this article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There are no images in this article.

Images and media evaluation
There were no images in the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are some great suggestions presented on ways to represent this topic, such as one suggesting to add additional sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated a C and it is part of the Computing, Internet and mass surveillance Wiki Project.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There weren't any discussions about this topic. This article breaks down on the topic of information privacy on so many different areas, such as education and such.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page provided excellent suggestions on ways to represent this topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is that the article provides a thorough description of some subtopics. However, there are some subtopics that need more details.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths is that it is very organized.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The subtopics should have have an even amount of information because some topics are discussed more than others.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is some what developed. There is some room of improvement.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article has strengths, but there are areas that need improvement to make this article stronger.

Evaluate an article (2)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Navigazione Privata: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigazione_privata
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because it presents interesting information about private browsing.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead includes an introductory sentence that thorough describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does seem to provide a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The article includes information that is present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is concise and provides an adequate description of the article's major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content seems to be up-to-date, with its last update being march 11 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no missing content.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article doesn't deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Content evaluation
Overall, the article presents relevant information about the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * There article is biased towards talking about the benefits of private browsing.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are claims and even statistical claims that support private browsing.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are viewpoints that are overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does seem to persuade the reader in favor of one position.

Tone and balance evaluation
This article seems to be biased towards the benefits of private browsing.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It seems like all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are very thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but don't include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links do work.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources in this article are current and supports all of the facts presented in this article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is well-written and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some grammatical errors, such as the use of the word "the" for certain words, which is usually determine by the word after it and the last letter of that word.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is very well-organized and very easy to find specific information.

Organization evaluation
There are very few grammatical errors and the information is easy to navigate.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one image that enhances the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image is well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is laid out in a visually appealing way.

Images and media evaluation
The image is well-presented in this article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no discussions in this article's talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article isn't rated and isn't part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There weren't any discussions about this topic. This article provides a brief description of private browsing.

Talk page evaluation
The article doesn't have anything on its talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is that the article provides a brief description of private browsing.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths is that its facts are backed up by reliable sources.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There should be more details for certain subtopics.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is poorly developed. There could be more details for all the subtopics.

Overall evaluation
Overall, this article has more weaknesses than strengths and needs more improvement.

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: