User:Xtiantaylor/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 science)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It seems Interesting.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Maybe. Though the topic sentence is precise, I'm not sure if it's concise. Of course, there always needs to be a balance between precision and brevity, but the epistemology (?) or, rather, the denotation of the field itself seems to lack capacity to be concise. In any case, the introductory sentence seems to be lacking in palatability (brevity).
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise but very detailed at the same time.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? It was last edited 21 August, 2020.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? N/A.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? N/A.

Is the article neutral? No. The subheading "Social Media's power to facilitate topics" shows bias ("the connections and networks sustained through social media help information providers learn what is important to people").
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? See above.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There are a lack of citations all throughout.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Seems to praise information literacy.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No. Mentioned above.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Above.
Are the sources current? Some.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/a.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, but there aren't even links to a few of them.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Prose is easy to read. Organization, however, seems to be lacking-- or at least categorized in a redundant way: For example, there is a heading called "foundations" that covers the definition of information science, then a heading called "History" that gives various definitions of information science, then another heading called "Information dissemination in the 21st century" which defines information science, yet again. Logically, there needs to be a reframing of categories.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No. See above.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There seems to only be one useful image under "Research Vectors and Applications" : Information Access
Are images well-captioned?Yes
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a.
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? Most conversations were in in 2005-2010 and were actively discussed .. yet was very argumentative and polemic.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, two: 1) WikiProject Libraries; 2) WikiProject Computer Science.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? They seem to be doing it all wrong.

What is the article's overall status? Abandoned and in need of "disambiguation" page.
What are the article's strengths? Lot's of information present; notable topic (easy to research) -- however new and evolving-- needs an adaptive organizational structure.
How can the article be improved? Better organization, reconceptualization.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? 3/10.

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 — ~~~~