User:TheDionysus/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Digital literacy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I selected this article as it relates to the current course I am taking. Digital literacy is extremely relevant and important in everyone's lives. First impressions are that the article/page is nicely constructed and has a lot of sources.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * It does, yes.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes an article "Contents" section, but the introduction paragraph does not mention the major sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and does a great job of giving the user an overview of the article.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content appears to be up to date, but could benefit from some more recent studies.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No information appears to be missing based on my knowledge of the subject and based on what the lead said the article would provide.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedias equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does not.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article from a neutral point of view?
 * It is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Nothing that stands out.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Everything appears to be presented equally.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article explains how digital literacy is used, but does not persuade the reader one way or another.

Sources and references

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * It appears that most if not all facts are backed up by a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * It appears mixed, but could do better.
 * Are the sources current?
 * While some are, quite a few are extremely dated considering how fast digital literacy has evolved.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * From a brief look, it would appear so.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * I would argue that there are better sources available that can be used.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They do, but some are accessed through the WayBack machine as an archive.

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It's a little dry, but it is well written and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It does not.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Only 1.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one image that is, has a decent caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are a lot of conversations around the official definition.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article has a C class rating and is part of a few WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * I would say it's focused more on the history compared to a class where we usually are speaking about it in today's terms.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is not officially verified, so it has some work to be done. Overall, it is a great article about digital literacy.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The history is well presented.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article needs additional citations for verification.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think while the historical reference is greatly documented, the article can definitely used imagery and more recent examples to help complete its relevance.