User:Srivera6/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

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?
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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
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?

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 neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
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?
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.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

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?
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?

Images and Media

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?

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?
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?

Overall impressions

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?

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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Behavior informatics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it very obviously needs some extra help. This is an important topic and behavior informatics is a type of data analysis that is common. Honestly, though, looking at this article, you would not think this is the case at all. This article is very bare minimum, and states nothing but the basics, if even that at all.

Evaluate the article

(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section

I think that the lead section in this article is ok, but not great. It introduces some ideas about the topic of behavior informatics, but does so in a way that if a reader would have to have some background knowledge on the topic to really learn anything from the lead section. For example, the first sentence alone includes the words behavior 3 times and the word informatics twice. I think the rest of the lead section does a better part of summing up an overview about what behavior informatics is. At the lead section does not include a brief description of what will come later in the article. The lead includes very little information, and is too concise. It introduces a few ideas, but they are not elaborated on later in the article.

Content

The article's content is up to date and relevant, but the content is very minimal. There is a lot missing. I can not tell you exactly what is missing, but I could later on when completing an edit of this article. However, it is obvious that information is missing. Since I am not completely versed on the topic of behavior informatics, I do not know what content is missing, so much as I know that there is definitely content missing. The article does not, at all, address any equity gaps or historically underrepresented groups.

Tone and Balance

The article has a neutral tone. There is no specific biased viewpoint being offered at any point in the article. There is a balance offered in the article, but that is probably influenced by the fact that there is such little information in the article.

Sources and References

The facts in the article are backed up by secondary sources. Most of the sources are textbooks. The sources are recent, but not very recent. Sources are from around 10-15 years ago. There is not a good representation of authors. The sources are not bad, however, there are probably much more recent sources that can be used, instead. For example, in terms of textbooks, they are constantly updated, so surely there are newer and more reliable sources. The few links offered are functional and do work.
This article was considered for deletion because of copyright infringement. However, it was contested in 2016. Even now, when you click the link on the article, a pop up shows up that the article needs additional citations for verification. This article definitely could use some work when it comes to sources and references.

Organization and writing quality

What little is written in the article is well written. But there is very little written. The article is not well-organized because there is a lot more potential for different sections that could be added. This would add more information into the article as well. The few sections that the article is split into are lacking in information.

Images and Media

There are no images at all in this article.

Talk Page Discussion

The only talk on the talk page is, how I mentioned before, a contested deletion from 2016. The article is of interest to WikiProject for psychology, sociology, education, and computing. It is rated start class and of low importance for all of these.

Overall impressions

The article's overall status is below average, and it definitely needs some work. The article's strengths would lie in its lead section, since it is the most robust section. The article could use lots of improvement in the subsections, while adding to the ones that already exist, but there also should be more sections added. The article is not close to complete. I picked it for this reason, since I think there is a lot of room for me to improve upon. It is underdeveloped, but is a work in progress.