User:Lex.cinema/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Politics and technology
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
- I've chosen this article due to the fact that recently listening to WHYY and NPR, more of our politics are being integrated within technology. Political officials are relying on technology for sources, spreading information/misinformation, informing the public, voting, and so much more. Previously, many officials rejected the use of technology due to hacking concerns, failure to operate as intended, or other privacy related issues (i.e. Iowa primaries) I have been much more involved with politics and viewing their usage of technology that I see that this article is a good fit for me.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- I believe so. It appears that the Lead states that the Wiki article will cover topics such as mechanisms, personalities, efforts, and social movements - It feels as though this might need to be worked on.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, mechanisms, personalities, efforts, and social movements. I believe there are more to add as well.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Yes, the lead talks about major topics but barely does the article focus on these topics.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- Concise

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- The majority is yes, content like Leapfrog Democracies feel thrown in without too much explanation of how it is relevant.
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes, but with politics in 2020 this is happening much more rapidly.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- There is definitely content that is missing, content that does not belong require me to learn about content placed in the article.

Is the article neutral?
- For the most part, there are some adjectives that shuold be removed.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- All viewpoints are from the public, which is understandable. Maybe there might be information from the viewpoint of politicians.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Some facts do not have reliable secondary sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Some facts are, some facts are not.
Are the sources current?
- Yes
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- It is slightly difficult to read, the beginning is very easy. Towards the actual content, it gets very difficult.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Not that I know of.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
Yes, broken down into sections. But major points reflected in the lead do not reflect in the sections.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No.
Are images well-captioned?
- Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Yes.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Yes.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- Recent convos regarded what sources should be scanned and added into the article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- Starter article - It is apart of WikiProject Politics & WikiProject Technology
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- I'm not too sure honestly. We don't discuss politics too often or in this way.

What is the article's overall status?
- The article is Start-Class and Top-importance
What are the article's strengths?
- Being started on, having major points like critics and presence of online tools
How can the article be improved?
- Give examples how politics has change as a result of incorporating technology, hacking risks, politics on social media, politics on twitter, political apps, voting, representation, etc.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- It is a great start, underdeveloped though.

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 — ~~~~