User:Millyphilip/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.

• Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal: Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal
• My project is about #DeleteFacebook, so naturally I wanted to learn more about the center of Facebook controversies, the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. We also might do #OwnYourData, so it is fitting to see how the scandal surrounding users' data unfolded.

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, at first glance, is quite lengthy. The first sentences contain a lot of details, with very little citations. For an introductory sentence, it is a bit confusing but it covers the major points of data harvesting and political scandal. It gives nearly all the big points one might one to know about the scandal, in terms of the timeline, including all of the media involved, the impact on Facebook's market, and Mark Zuckerberg's testimony to Congress. It is a bit overly detailed, but it covers the major points later discussed. One might not need to keep reading after the lead, due to the detail. The main striking thing is the lack of citations in the article. There is a banner at the top, however, notifying a reader of this issue.

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 content is up to date as it has the most recent information about the scandal, including Facebook being fined in July. It is vague in some parts, such as what the data was used for; there is a section for it but it has two bullet points with one sentence each hyperlinked to another article. It could have gone more in depth. If a reader who had no idea about the scandal were to read this, they still would not understand how this data breach was unethical. It discusses the media coverage a lot, which seems much less relevant to the issue than the use of the data. For example, it discusses Meghan McCain's commentary which is completely irrelevant. It should also discuss other reactionary measures like California's recent data privacy law.

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

It seems to only talk about the reaction of Meghan McCain, which not only is completely irrelevant, it represents the view of a daytime talk show. There is not much room with this topic to sway readers one way or another. However the article feels more like what one would read from a news source, quoting Mark Zuckerberg quite a few times, rather than paraphrasing and describing his testimony to Congress. Otherwise, it is neutral.

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

There is a plethora of sources at the bottom of the article, but there is a poor job of inline citations. Additionally, the sources are relatively reliable including from Reuters, NPR, BBC News, as well as a mix of international sources from countries also affected by the scandal, such as India, Italy, etc. One would not immediately think this as . there are few inline citations, that are often repeated within one section.

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

It is, overall, organized poorly. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The structure of the content does not make sense, and the titles could be more clear. For example, "Media Coverage" seems to be an irrelevant section that warrants irrelevant facts. Instead it could be changed to "New York Times Expose" to discuss the initial investigation and breaking of the news in depth, including how it all happened. Furthermore, there should be a section on "Reactions" instead of "Responses" as to the actions taken after the scandal broke. The Congressional testimony also deserves its own section, but its muddled into "Responses."

It also neglects a main point of how the data was used, and the section on that looks lazy.

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

There is no media or images. Perhaps a logo of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica would be helpful to spark familiarity. There is no other media that would help the article, unless it was a link to Zuckerberg in Congress.

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 section has a lot of fact checking, where users specify why they added or removed information that was unclear or inaccurate. Some people were notifying other users of their biases or personal conflicts while editing information, and apologizing and informing about their connection to the subject matter. They also discuss the wording of the article "scandal" over "breach" by checking what language news sources have used. Most recently, someone compiled a list of improvements they'd like to see, which mostly ask for expanding on information. The top of the talk page has banners rating the importance of the article to different wikiprojects. It all seems to be what I expected based on trainings.

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

It's not a great article. It covers the surface and adds details for unnecessary parts of the topic. It is strong in describing what data was taken advantage of, and specifying the backstory of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. It does a poor job of describing what the data was used for and how other companies reacted to this. It should be developed further in this information to describe more of what happened during and after the breach.

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:
• Talk:Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal#"Reactions" instead of "Responses