User:Sauceboss12/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.


 * Search engine privacy: (Search engine privacy)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate as it covers a subset of internet privacy which deals with the user data being collected by search engines.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly states what Search engine privacy is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it touches upon most of the subsections, each given their own sentence.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information included in the lead it is present in some form later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, The lead gives 2-3 sentence covering what a search engine is and how that relates to privacy. Then they give a 1 sentence description of the article's major subsection

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to search engine privacy.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of this article is up to date to 2018-2019 standards
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the data seems to be related to the topic of search engine privacy and is contained with in the correct subheading. The only part of this article that I found might not be fitting was a random sentence at the beginning of the Ethical Debates section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, not having information pertaining to race, social structure, education or socio-economics. This article also does not address topics related to historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, for areas of potential bias both view points are covered to the same extent. This is mainly seen in the Ethical debates sub-section.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not any claims that are heavily biased. Potential biases are seen in the ethical debates sub section
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, this page covers both the pro and anti view points held by the current population and niches
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information. However, some articles are not backed up by a peer reviewed journal
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, but some take literature from the wrong location ex website of the actual topic ( citation 11)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are from the times of the event and stem up to the 2018-2019 year which was when the last major section of this paper was written
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, I do not know the all of the writings or even a majority of the writings in this field so I am unable to determinately say if they included marginalized individual where possible, but the selection of authors seemed pretty diverse.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links work good where available. One link is present but not hyperlinked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written its points are divided logically, making it both easy to read and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, as stated before the sections are divided in a logical order which benefits the topic and makes it easy to understand.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, but I do not feel that there are many images that would benefit this article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * NA
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * NA
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * NA

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 talks about how to improve the page both in content and in formatting.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes it is within the WikiProject Mass Surveillance and WikiProject Internet.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I looked into the authors and it literally is an article written in this class. This article differs from the way we read about articles in class as this one is brand new and seemed to be contained more in a class than a large open net thing.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has not yet received a content assessment, and does not have any alerts
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article strengths are the succinctness of the information as well the organization of information through subheading divisions.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by fixing the duckduck go citation as well as either expanding on or removing that sentence that seemed out of place
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would Access this articles completeness to almost fully complete, other than making a couple things more clear I would believe the page in itself is complete for this time.

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:

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


 * Data Protection Act 2018: (Data Protection Act 2018)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to as it covers legislation regarding the update to data protection.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly states what the Data Protection Act 2018 is and what it does in 2 sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it touches on both the background to this legislation and the contents of it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the information included in the lead it is present in some form later on in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, The lead gives 2 sentence covering what the Data Protection Act is and what it does. Could be potentially made more concise but it for sure is not overly detailed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all of the content is relevant to Data Protection Act 2018.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content of this article is up to date to 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All of the data seems to be related to the topic of search engine privacy and is contained with in the correct subheading.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, not having information pertaining to race, social structure, education or socio-economics. This article also does not address topics related to historically underrepresented population.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, this article is neutral covering the law itself rather than opinions about said law
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it does not seem to have a narrative/ agenda it only really reports on the contents of the Data Protection Act 2018

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most the facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, but there is copy righted information being cited which potentially goes against wiki's policies.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, they are from the times around when this legislation was passed.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, these seem to all be from government sources ( However it is just referencing government documents which I do not believe to be a problem)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, links work for both the citations as well as the external links.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the article is well written its points are divided logically, making it both easy to read and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None that I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No, the sub sub lists are not presented in a logical way and it contains a confusing list of lists making it hard to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is an image of the seal of the Act of Parliament of the UK however I do not believe it helps enhance understanding other than being an external link
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * None
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * yes it is within the WikiProject Law
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way wikipedia discusses this topic differs from the way we've talked about it in class is that the talk page is empty

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This article has been rated stub-class with mid-importance
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article strengths are the lack of bias and brevity
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by fixing the order of information making it more understandable and intuitve, as well as making potential new subsections.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would Access this articles completeness as under developed as it is a very basic description of the topic but can be expanded in many ways in content and quality

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: