User:RKM757/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
“Password strength” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Password_strength

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article considering the high prevalence of cyberattacks in society following the rapid tech development. System safety matters a lot, and it often starts with password strength, which is discussed in this article. My preliminary impression of this article is its structure, which makes it easy to follow and read.

Lead section
The lead section of this article defines the topic and offers a concise overview. I could identify and understand the article’s topic by just reading the first sentence. The lead section also gives a quick overview of the entire article. It includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The first sentence mentions ‘password strength’, which is the article’s title. The same sentence defines ‘password strength,’ revealing its importance against brutal-force attacks. Unfortunately, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections but rather an overview that tells the reader what is being covered. The lead also includes information about the UK’s NCSC that is not present in the article. Nevertheless, it is concise, giving a few crucial details to set the flow of the article.

Content
An excellent Wikipedia article balances content in all critical aspects of a topic. For instance, the article's content is relevant to the topic. From addressing issues related to password creation, password guess validation, the required bits of entropy, and guidelines for reliable passwords, this article has extensively covered the topic of ‘password strength’. Unfortunately, the content is not up-to-date as the article has utilized sources that date back to 1994 and the 2000s. However, no content is missing or does not belong. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible. The article “Password Strength” is neutral, capturing information from multiple sources without bias. The authors have only shared content supporting their topic and sub-topics, avoiding misinformation. No claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position in the article. Likewise, the article does not have any overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints, but minority or fringe viewpoints are accurately described as such. For instance, the article reveals why it is dangerous to develop one's password, terming essential individualistic qualities, including a person’s lifestyle, as a source of vulnerability. This is one scenario where the article attempts to persuade the reader to favor random password generation over human-generated passwords.

Sources and References
Outstanding Wikipedia articles are based on the best sources available for the topic. For the “Password Strength” article, all facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. There are 65 sources cited throughout the article. These sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic. For instance, source one from US-CERT offers well-vetted cybersecurity tips on choosing and safeguarding passwords. Unfortunately, some sources are not current, like source nine, which dates back to 1994. More importantly, the sources are written by various authors from the 90s to the 2000s. Some links attached to the sources, including 44, do not work. Better sources are also available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites. For instance, instead of source 44, the authors could have used the source by Florêncio et al. (2014). Sources 53 and 54 could be swapped with the journal article by Tan et al. (2020).

Organization and writing quality
The Wikipedia article is well-written and organized in sub-headings to make it concise, clear, and easy to read. Each section of the article reflects the significant points of the topic. The article has no grammatical or spelling errors and is well-proofread and edited.

Images and Media
The article included three images that enhance understanding of the topic. The first image shows a password generator tool at work, while the second and third images capture tables with extensive data about random passwords. All images are well-captioned to allow easy follow-up by readers. In addition, the images are laid out visually appealingly and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. For instance, not citing them means the content creators own them; hence, they do not have licensing restrictions.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page addresses various factors, including a run-on sentence in the fourth paragraph, whose meaning seems hidden to some readers. Integrating Diceware on the tables raises some concerns as some parties argue that it results in illogical conclusions. As revealed on the talk page, the word inherence also does not align with the topic. In addition, the article is rated C-class and is a part of various WikiProjects, including computing, systems, and cryptography (Talk: Password strength, 2023). How Wikipedia discusses this topic is almost similar to how we discussed it in class. This article is detailed and technical, making it enjoyable to read.

Overall impressions
The article's overall status is excellent. Its strengths range from appealing structure, extensive details, and use of diverse sources. The article can be improved by checking the critical areas mentioned on the talk page, including integrating Diceware into the tables. Regarding the article's completeness, it is well-developed. It has much knowledge to share.

Examples of good feedback
This article is well-organized, detailed, and educative. However, Diceware on the tables must be fixed to improve the article’s effectiveness, ensuring local conclusions are attained.