User:Showtime oski/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
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.
 * I selected this article to evaluate because it is mandatory to evaluate this specific article.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and clear about the article's topic. While the lead does briefly hint at some of the article's major sections, such as political and legal issues existing in the field of information privacy, it does not specifically foreshadow the sections on "Information types" or the "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues." Beyond the introductory sentence, the Lead is also very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date; some of the sources are as recent as 2018 and 2019. There does not seem to be any content that is out-of-place. However, there are many topics on information privacy that are not discussed, but instead linked to related fields (e.g., criminal justice investigations and health care records). The article does not seem to deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is, on the whole, neutral, with no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. However, within the "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues" section, it claims that the US and EU's Passenger Name Record agreement was "controversial," and the following paragraph includes mostly criticism (from the EU and Brussels, not the writer) of the agreement. The absence of the US point of view on the agreement -- whether US officials supported the agreement or not -- can be seen as underrepresentation. But it does, at its closing, take a neutral, fact-based stance on the issue (explaining that the source of tensions between the US and Brussels is the relatively weak data protection in the US).

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, are thorough and current (as previously mentioned), and are written by a diverse spectrum of authors. However, there are no mentions of historically marginalized individuals.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, is grammatically correct, with correct spelling, and is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The article does not include images.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Some of the conversations occurring in the talk page are about possible additions (like about the privacy protection in India and China or about critiquing search engine data). The article is within the scope of several WikiProjects, including those on Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance. The article is rated "C" for all three projects. Wikipedia discusses this topic in a much more opinionated way than any of the discussion on privacy we've done in class; this includes the user who submitted the suggestion for a section on "Privacy Protection in India and China" cursing to emphasize how important they feel such a section would be too the page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is well-written, although a bit informal at times -- for example, the "Protecting privacy on the internet" section includes the phrase "users give away a lot of information about themselves" -- but it can be improved greatly, on the whole, by developing more of the sections, which include many of the information privacy issues today but instead link them to other Wikipedia pages. The treatment that the "United States Safe Harbor program and passenger name record issues" section received -- relatively in-depth and detailed writing -- should be extended to issues like search engine privacy or the status of privacy rights in, for example, China.

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: