User:Stellasuperba/Evaluate an Article

Which articles are you evaluating?
Information Privacy

Why you have chosen these articles to evaluate?
I have chosen two articles for evaluation, as per instruction.

Information Privacy
I chose to evaluate this article because it was one one of the suggested training articles.

Lead Section

 * The lead contains a clear introductory sentence that gives useful insight into broader topic covered.
 * The lead refers to most of the articles major sections. There are some which are not explicitly stated in the lead (United States Safe Harbor Program), which may better fit under an already listed heading (politics?), or may merit an entirely new section (e.g. International Standards?).
 * All of the information in the article fulls under the umbrella of subjects outlined in the lead with the exception of "Authorities", which may require acknowledgement in the lead, but may also be encapsulated in the subject "legal". That said, there is nothing outlined in the lead that is not covered in the article.
 * The lead is extremely concise. There may be room for expansion, although I don't have any specific suggestions at the moment. Hard to say, given that "Information Privacy" is more of a general idea.

Content

 * The content all appears to to relevant to the topic. The content seems a little sparse, but this is hard to say given the general ambiguity of the topic and its scope.
 * Article also appears up-to-date, although there has likely been new development in terms of legislation and political salience. I don't know if these would necessarily be included on the page (or potentially linked to a separate page), but there is likely more that can be added.
 * As mentioned above, there is certainly content that could be added, depending on the level of depth appropriate/expected for each topic. Most of those potential deep-dives (at least, those I can think of) are mentioned in passing elsewhere in the article.
 * I think the article could potentially spend more time on the social (or legal interpretations) of informational privacy. Many of the sub-categories refer to either methods of extracting information or ways to protect yourself from information, both of which are relevant, but don't necessarily speak to the contemporary social implication. Could include a section called "Modern Debate" or "Applications."
 * The article does not specifically discuss matters of equity/discrimination in information privacy practices. Would probably be a good addition, given that these issues often lay front-and-center for this topic, both in terms of data/information acquisition protocols as well as the instrumental value of personal data. I suppose, in that sense, there is likely a "content" or "equity" gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Article is written from a neutral tone.
 * The article appears to be generally free of bias.
 * There are no minority or fringe viewpoints--none of the content covered is subject to controversy (at least, in the context that it is covered). May actually be worth including some material about controversial takes on modern dilemmas.
 * There are no attempts to persuade readers towards any particular conclusion.
 * Except, potentially, the content under the "Internet" heading, which prompts users to "exercise caution when posting anything online." This isn't exactly a controversial stance, but there is certainly a value judgement hidden in there. Could be written more objectively.

Sources and References

 * Content is generally well-sourced, with the exception of the section on "Protection of Privacy in Information Systems." Information on "Policy Communication," "Policy Enforcement," and "Protecting Privacy on the Internet," are not directly cited.
 * The sources cited are, for the most part, up to date. Those that are a little dated generally refer to information which has likely remain unchanged.
 * Information about P3P, XACML, EPAL, and WS-Privacy (under protection of privacy in information systems heading) should be cited and potentially hyper-linked.
 * The sources are thorough for what they cover. Again, I am not sure at what point a magnified look at a specific topic merits its own page. (If you were writing an article on "Birds" you wouldn't feel compelled to list every species of bird, or talk about the entire diversity of flight/migration patterns.)
 * Sources cited in the article seem to be authored by a semi-diverse crowd, at least in terms of gender, though even that aspect appears male-dominated.
 * Links seem to be in good working-order.
 * Much of the information is cited from news sources (albeit, generally credible ones). There are likely more centralized, wide-scope academic journals to be sourced on the same material (and to provide addition insights.

Organization and Writing Quality

 * Article is generally concise and well written. That said:
 * Sub-section on "Education" uses a particularly long quote that could stand to be paraphrased.
 * The content under the heading "cable television" is a little unclear. The quote which comprises the majority of the content in the section is loosely correlated to the topic, but does not follow clearly from the topic sentence and also lack the contextual support to make sense of it.
 * Section on "United States Safe Harbor Program," despite containing pertinent information, is a little oddly placed. As mentioned elsewhere, an entire section devoted to "International Standards" or "Contemporary Debate" may be warranted.
 * The lead references individual subjects (computer security, data security, and information security). Some of these are not clearly covered in the article, while others are sporadically touched upon under broader headings. These may each merit their own heading, followed by sub-headings such as "Applications," "Risks," "Protective Measures," etc. Again, may be outside the scope of the article.
 * I do not see any clear grammatical errors.
 * The article is somewhat well organized, at least for the information it covers. That said, the entire organization scheme could be re-thought. Information privacy is both a technological and a normative issue, each pertaining to very different (yet overlapping) subject matter. Attempting to restructure the page in a way that generally captured these aspects might be useful. For instance, the section on "Information Types" would stay put, but could be followed by something along the lines of "Accessing Information" (working title), which might better explain the various ways of capturing, storing, and protecting information. The next portion of the article might be dedicated to modern outlooks on privacy measures, potential conflicting interests, industry standards, legislation, current debates, etc. Structuring the article as such might also make it a better avenue for routing people to more in-depth information about these topics.

Images and Media

 * There is no images or media embedded in the page.

Talk Page Discussions

 * Article is part of a couple of different ongoing projects: "WikiProject Computing," "WikiProject Internet," and "WikiProject Mass Surveillance." It is rated as c-class, and is marked as high priority.
 * Primary ongoing conversation is about an article name-change. People are arguing for the change on a grammatical basis, as well as questioning what, exactly, is including under that heading. There is a call for more legal scholarship (I agree), as well as some minor conversations about tone and sourcing.

Overall Impression

 * Article is a good start, but it is a start. There will need to be some concrete organizational changes in order to better navigate content changes. The article does a good job giving a general overview of the breadth of the topic, but does not adequately suss out the individual aspects which may be better described when approached from the vantage point of various disciplines. In this sense, I believe that the article is somewhat under-developed. Starting from discipline-specific understandings of the topic may provide a better framework for structuring the article.