User:E102Group7/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]Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]We chose this article to evaluate because it helps us understand government policies that protect user information and cybersecurity. By learning about the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act, we learn how businesses provide user data to the government to combat cybersecurity threats, allowing for connection between private companies and the federal government.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic by elaborating on the design, structure, and goals of the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act. It includes a brief description of the article's major sections, going over the how companies and government work hand in hand, the history and origin of the law, key dates involving the passing of the legislature, as well as an introduction to various positions on the act. The lead includes information that is covered later on in the article and is fairly concise.
The article's content is relevant to the topic, however, the information isn't as up to date as it could be. Most articles and references are based on content developed in 2014 and 2015. Positions and developments to the piece of legislature could have changed over the past decade, especially as personal data and social media businesses have expanded greatly. The article doesn't touch on underrepresented populations or topics, but it does introduce different perspectives on the acceptance of the CIS Act.
The article is neutral while also providing various perspectives of those who support the Cybersecurity Act and those who oppose it. There aren't any extreme bias shown nor any overrepresented viewpoints. There are no persuasive ideas integrated. All of the facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources of information, with organizations such as Forbes, The Hill, but also references to other legislative Acts and Policies. The sources are not very current, as they are from a decade ago.
The article is well-written, with no outstanding grammatical or spelling errors. It is well-organized, reflecting some sort of chronological order starting off with history, various positions, and support and effected groups. There aren't any images incorporated in the article.
The article seems to be well-written, however it can be improved by updating content to match new perspectives and the relation it has to new developments in policy and cybersecurity in the federal government. The article is well-developed at the time it was written.