User:Bdmparker/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_acceptance_model#CITEREFVenkateshDavis2000
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
Lead section
A 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.
Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes
Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- No, it does not provide a brief description of the article’s major sections but it does provide a list of the major sections.
Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
- No, it does not reference a topic that is not later addressed in the article.
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I would say that it contains more information than it should. It is defining terms and that should likely not be in the introduction/lead section.
Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes
Is the content up-to-date?
- Yes
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- The information provided appears to be relevant and important to the discussion. A comparative table of this Acceptance Model to a few other notable ones like UTAUT would be helpful to provide a quick reference with more context, strengths, weaknesses about TAM.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- I don’t think this question is applicable to this work on the Technology Acceptance Model.
Tone and Balance
Wikipedia 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.
Is the article from a neutral point of view?
- Yes, it also written 3rd person, objectively, and no opinions offered.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No claims stated.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No, very neutral topic that was well represented.
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
- This question is not applicable.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No
Sources and References
A 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.
Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, and this work cited very popular researchers in the field (Venkatesh et al).
Are the sources current?
- The sources range from 1969-2015. There is certainly more current work but most of the current works reference many of the works in this article. So much of the information provided by the references are still relevant.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- Not able to determine.
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
- A lot of the sources used are giants in the field of user technology acceptance. There is no concern regarding the notability and reliability of the sources referenced.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes, I checked about 5 links including Researcher Names and they all worked as expected.
Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The leading section was a bit verbose with definitions but all else was easy to read and follow.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- I noticed some grammatical errors, especially with punctuations and missing articles but I did not notice any spelling errors. Though I have never seen the term “popularisable” used in the English language.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes
Images and Media
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- This article did not include any images.
Are images well-captioned?
- Not applicable
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Not applicable
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- Not applicable
Talk page discussion
The 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.
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There are comments regarding the “Poor Use of Citations”
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- I was not able to locate a rating on the Talk page or elsewhere. It is of interest to Wikiproject Computing, Invention, and Technology.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- We have not discussed this topic in class. However, I have done some research on this topic for my dissertation on US SMEs acceptance of CIS Controls. It is much lighter reading comparatively and does not go into as much details as the other works I read. However, the actual information appears to be accurate to previous readings.
Overall impressions
What is the article's overall status?
- This article is currently published.
What are the article's strengths?
- It does a good job providing the major points of this model in an easily digestible manner.
How can the article be improved?
- Correct the grammatical errors to improve readability.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- This is a well developed and well viewed article. It appears to cover the main points of TAM.
Examples of good feedback
A 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.
- There are some minor grammatical errors like missing periods. Also, including definitions in the lead section is somewhat averse to the point of the section. It makes the section too verbose.