User:ALR Student/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I am familiar with Section 230 and Section 230 reform. It's an important topic and the authors of the article are close but are missing an understanding of the big picture. The article emphasizes two options for reform that were purely political and unenforceable instead of spending time on legitimate proposals for reform. The article frames the conversation as just about social media, but section 230 has a much farther influence.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead of the article is fine. The writing could use some work, but all the necessary overview information is there and it doesn't introduce any information not in the body of the article.
The article is neutral but falls into the trap of spending more time talking about the political stunts surrounding the act than sincere reform. Trump's EO and the EARN IT act are not worth talking about in such depth. They were unenforceable political moves to get people worked up. The PACT Act, SAFE Tech Act, and other proposals not mentioned, are worth more exploration as they actually address the problems in Section 230 and are not simply reactions to the conversations surrounding the 2020 elections.
The article uses poor sources. It cites to a lot of blogs and unknown newspapers for quotes and facts that could be found in scholarly articles. For example, they quote "the 26 words that invented the internet" from an unknown internet publication instead of the law review article that coined the phrase.
The "Application and Limits" section is too short and should be broken up into two sections. "Application" can talk about how the act was initially used and how it has been used as the internet grows. Because 'Application' is its own section, "impact" can be cut. The whole current social conversation about Section 230 is about its limits, so that warrants its own section. That section would be a good place to put the legislative proposals to curb section 230 instead of where they are now. The writing is awkward in places.
The article organizes all the proposals to reform Section 230 under the heading about the debate over social media. While this is why Section 230 became a hot button topic in the last few years, it drastically underplays the importance of section 230 is every other aspect of the internet.
There is no active conversation on the talk page. All the comments are a few years old.
The article provides a strong foundation but shows a surface level understanding of Section 230. It needs more authoritative citation, organization that better explains the chronology of the act without being repetitive, and balance the sincere options for reform against the political stunts.