User:Yzo5031/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: Philosophy of Technology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: It is concerned with the social impact of technology on our day to day lives which is very relevant to the material covered in IST 431

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 statement that briefly describes the article's topic.
 * The lead partially includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It does not talk about modern day philosophy and technology.
 * The lead only includes information present in the main body of the article.
 * The lead is too concise and could have included more about the philosophy of technology rather than the history of it.

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 not exactly relevant to the topic. It focuses too much on the history of the philosophy of technology rather than its principles and observations.
 * The content is more or less up to date. However, the article does not mention anything about the impact of technology on society over the past 5 years or so.
 * It does not talk enough about specific technological advancements like cyber-security, artificial intelligence, etc. that impact society the most and have overarching ethical issues today.
 * There is an equity gap in the article as it does not talk about how technology has affected lower income populations. It is also heavily centered only around Western philosophy and thought.

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 fairly neutral.
 * There is no bias towards any one position in the article.
 * Western philosophy is overrepresented in the article. The article does not cover topics pertinent to Eastern and Mediterranean cultures.
 * With Western philosophy being talked about more than anything else, it is possible that the article is trying to convince readers that Western philosophy is absolute.

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

 * Facts are backed by reliable sources of information. However, there are very few sources of information mentioned under references.
 * The sources are comprehensive and extremely thorough
 * The sources are fairly current with a some references published hundreds of years ago.
 * There are very few female authors mentioned in the sources. It also seems like most of the authors came from fairly well to do families.
 * All links work well.

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 concise, clear and easy to read.
 * The article has no grammatical errors.
 * The article is broken down into major sub sections of the topic.

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 only has one image that does not provide further context to the information of the article.
 * The only image that exists could have added more information about the person named.
 * The image adheres to copyright regulations.
 * The image is easily seen in the article.

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

 * Most of the conversations in the talk page revolve around clarification of certain topics and inclusion of philosophers who editors think might have provided significant contributions in the field of technological philosophy.
 * The article is rated Start-class and is a part of 4 WikiProjects namely, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject, Science Policy.
 * Wikipedia discusses more about the history of the philosophers rather than talking about the impact of technology on societies over a period of time which is what we focus on in class.

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

 * I believe the article is far from complete and has a lot of sub categories missing in the main body.
 * The article does a great job on introducing us to the philosophers who pioneered the movement of science philosophy.
 * The article could be improved by including analysis and learning gathered by philosophers and how it is being applied in our society and environment today.
 * The article is underdeveloped.

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: