User:TheDrummer2021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Computer-supported cooperative work

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is the main article we will be evaluating as a class.

Evaluate the article
Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No. The lead sentence does not explain what CSCW is.  Instead, it talks about the history and origin of the phrase.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does mention most of the main topics
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is a bit long. Some of the detail could be saved for other sections

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * To the best of my understanding, it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't see anything that does not belong, and though I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the topic, I don't see anything that is clearly missing
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, it talks about the technology gap and issues it presents in the CSCW field.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of them are, though some are older sources
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Where possible
 * 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.)
 * There are more sources available to add more view points and different understandings of the topics
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Some sections, such as the lead section felt a bit long winded and overly drawn out.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few, for example, the caption of the one and only image does not start with a capital letter.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, it is clearly organized

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There is one table/image
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Sort of, the image is labeled (though it is not capitalized correctly)
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The only one that is there is in a visually appealing location

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There does not appear to be much conversation on this page
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Yes, it's part of a few
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The talk about the subject abstractly. For example, they talk more about the structure and content of the article rather than discussing the topic in a creative way like we do in class

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Start Class as rated in three separate wiki projects.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Overall well written and well cited page
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Including more concepts and shortening the intro are two easy and important ways to improve. Additionally, more images and diagrams would be very helpful
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It could be expanded to cover more completely all of the topics and subfields within CSCW.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting