User:Zcollin8/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: Information science
 * I chose this article because it's the discipline taught in this course and my major.

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 of the article is very comprehensive. It contains an introductory paragraph that clearly outlines the topic of the article. It links to many related topics so that readers can branch off into related topics. A table of contents is included, breaking down each section of the article. It's concise and provides a brief summary and introduction to the topic.

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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic and doesn't have any notable missing or non-belonging content. The article is broken into sections: Foundations, Careers, History, Information dissemination in the 21st century, and Research vectors and applications. The content of the article is up-to-date and high quality.

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 takes a neutral tone that explains the content through an academic lens rather than a personal perspective. It doesn't contain bias toward any specific position and provides a neutral/academic description of each topic. Each topic is represented equivalent to the amount of relevant information. It doesn't try to persuade the reader, instead following Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral/academic perspective.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources/references section is very comprehensive, keeping in line with the quality of the rest of the page. All facts are backed up by reliable secondary sources and accurately reflect the literature on the topic. The sources are current and based off me checking out a few of the links it seems like they all work.

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 easy to read, doesn't contain excessive information, and extremely well organized. It's broken up into intuitive sections that give a broad understanding of the topic. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

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 contains a small number of images that enhance understanding of information science. For example, they have photos of historical members of the field when they discuss their contributions. The images are well-captioned provided adequate detail explaining the image. They follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The layout of the images could be improved. One example is increasing the size of charts/graphs so that they can read without being clicked on.

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
The talk page is very comprehensive. An example of a conversation being had about improving the article is how to better disambiguate between the library and computing concepts of information science. The article is included in two WikiProjects Libraries and Computer science. These are both top importance projects and rated as b-class and start-class respectively. Wikipedia discusses these topics in similar ways to how we discuss in class, making sense since Wikipedia is trying to be the encyclopedia of the internet and follows strict guidelines.

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
The article is very comprehensive, yet concise. The breakdown of sections, mentioned above, is the biggest strength of the article. It provides great historical perspective and shows the progression of the field well. I don't think the article has much room to improve other than staying up-to-date moving forward (almost like the page on information science would be up to the standard of information scientists). The article is well-developed and as complete as it can be until new additions to the field.

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: