User:Moonstar0619/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: Information privacy (Information privacy)
Lead
[edit]- 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
[edit]The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. Overall, the lead provides an insightful introduction of the article's topic. The lead can be improved through introducing the article's major sections.
Content
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article's content is relevant to the topic and relatively comprehensive and up-to-date. However, the content may contain equity gaps- for instance, people looking for information privacy on art would not be able to find relevant content.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article has a neutral tone as there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the content is based on fact instead of viewpoints.
Sources and References
[edit]- 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
[edit]All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable and thorough secondary source of information, and links of resources do work. The sources are also current as the it includes sources from recent years.
Organization
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is well-written as it is concise, clear, and easy to read. The article is well-organized and does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article does not contain any image.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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
[edit]There are academic conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. The article is rated as solid. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs is that the conversations are more formal.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article's overall status is relatively solid as it is well-developed. The strengths are that the content is clear and concise, and the resources cited are reliable. The article can be improved by covering a broader topics under the section of "Information types".
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: Bank secrecy (Bank secrecy)
- I have chosen this article to evaluate because I'm interested in the industry of finance.
Lead
[edit]- 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
[edit]The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. However, the lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and the information in the lead is too detailed. Overall, the lead provides an insightful introduction of the article's topic but it needs to be more concise .
Content
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article's content is relevant to the topic but it mainly contain links to other wikipedia articles. The content may contain equity gaps- for instance, people looking for banking privacy in Asia would not be able to find relevant content.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article has a neutral tone as there is no claim that appears heavily biased toward a particular position. Most of the content is based on fact instead of viewpoints.
Sources and References
[edit]- 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
[edit]All facts in the article are backed up by a reliable and thorough secondary source of information, and links of resources do work. The sources are also current as the it includes sources from recent years.
Organization
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is easy to read but it has very limited content. The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article includes two images which are well-captioned and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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
[edit]There are academic conversations going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic. There are some controversies regarding the content of the article. The way Wikipedia discusses this topic differs is that the conversations are more formal, and some sentences are not easy to understand.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article's overall status is relatively solid as it is concise and the resources cited are reliable. The article can be improved in the way that provides a brief introduction above the link for each section of content. The article may also cover equity gap by including section of banking privacy in Asian countries.