User:T0b0rx0r/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article evaluating is Cyber Threat Intelligence

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I decided to choose the Cyber Threat Intelligence article as it is relevant to my dissertation topic. My initial impressions of the article is that it could use improvements. The topic area of the article suggests that more information could be presented to readers. Additionally while the article seems to be well sourced additional references and related material could be presented.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Introduction

The wiki article I decided to evaluate was that of Cyber Threat Intelligence. This is an article relevant to my dissertation and one that contained obvious areas of improvement. The article first published in 2019 and last updated in May of 2021. The article while containing more than two dozen updates since its creation is brief and lacks depth into the subject it pertains to. It has also been flagged by Wikipedia as possibly being too technical and needing attention from a computer security expert.

Structure

The structure of the article appeared to meet the standards defined within the wiki guidelines. The beginning of the article utilizes bolding while individual sections are paragraph type faced. Sub headings exist and their are liberal use of bullet points which clearly organizes the work. There was some inconsistent use of bolding as identified in the screenshot below where a subheading should have been indented to better define the start of a section.

Content

The content of the the article was most distracting and needing of improvement. I found that critical subject areas of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) to be omitted from the work. Notably the article references 3 areas of threat intelligence while in several different texts including Bautista's Practical Cyber Intelligence an average of 6 are presented. To that end, much of the material appears to be superficial and not contributed by someone with a full understanding of CTI in relation to specific areas of cybersecurity. Broadly I would characterize the article as under-developed and not well balanced. Critical links of the relevance of CTI are not presented nor are modern methodologies for implementing CTI.

Tone

I did not find the tone of the article to be distracting. It was generally written in a neutral tone without any clear bias. There were however several grammatical mistakes and inelegant diction apparent that could have improved the readers experience.

Sources

I found the use of sources to be an area that could be improved. A total of 4 references were cited in the article, 1 reference was to a published book, 1 reference was of a vendor white paper, 1 was a deadlink to a website and 1 was an article to a government institution. No peer reviewed articles were used which could have been leveraged to present modern methodologies in CTI. Notably the use of a vendor white paper is specifically an area that the wiki guidelines suggest not to use due to the potential for bias.

Talk Page

The Talk Page of the article was non existent. It could be assumed that given the nearly 2 dozen edits on this page there should be a full discourse present on the talk page between its multiple authors. I would critique this as potentially contributing to the disjointed nature of the article and lack of depth.