User:Rmoli039/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Password
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. For my digital campaign, my goal is to inform about dangers and risks one may encounter online and to educate on safer internet practices. Using strong passwords and managing them effectively is critical to protecting oneself online. Knowing how they work is important in both learning how & teaching others how to choose better passwords and keep them organized.

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. The Lead reads more like a summary of what a password is, how it works, and what it can look like. It does not refer to the history of passwords, how to choose a strong password, password cracking, alternatives to passwords, or "The password is dead", which are all major sections of the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the Lead has information on official terminology that is not referenced in the actual article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed in a few specific areas and completely leaves out information about other things.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article stays on-topic.
Is the content up-to-date? The article does appear to be current and reference recent developments and trends in Computer Science.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing major appears to be missing. Major topics cover history, form, function, and current trends.

Is the article neutral? The article appears to be neutral, with no indications of opinion or specific points-of-view being promoted over others.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Claims are supported by citations and all major points-of-view in the industry are shown.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all major points-of-view in the industry are shown.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, positions are portrayed from a position of neutrality and in fair light.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are many references used throughout the article and almost all facts and topics are supported with outside sources. A few statements are missing citations, however.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources reflect a large variety of available references and literature from different areas.
Are the sources current? There are many sources from recent years, with multiple from 2019 and sooner.
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is very detailed, which can make parts difficult to read. Some introductions are not very concise, and should be shortened.
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? Yes, although the balance of different sections is poor. The article could use some reorganization.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article has only one image, which simply shows an example of a blank Username & Password field on Wikipedia. The article needs more imagery.
Are images well-captioned? Yes.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
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? There is little conversation on the Talk Page about the article. There are no comments made in 2020, and only two comments made in 2019 about a single sentence in the article.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated C-Class and rated Mid-importance. It is supported by WikiProject Computer Security, WikiProject Computer science, & WikiProject Cryptography and marked as Top-importance.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article has a section on Choosing a secure and memorable password, which directly relates to my digital campaign.

What is the article's overall status? The article is long and detailed, with current, relevant, and well-supported information. The core components of a good article are there, it just needs some organization, balancing, and touch-ups to finer details.
What are the article's strengths? The article's strengths are in its detailed information, which goes in-depth in many different aspects of what passwords are, how they work, and the many different forms they take.
How can the article be improved? The article could be improved by being reorganized, with the sections rewritten to be more balanced and to create a more succinct flow. Some areas, like section introductions, could be made more concise. Images could be added to give visual support to the otherwise text-heavy content. The Lead could be rewritten to give a better introduction to all aspects of the article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I feel this article is near-complete, and fairly well-developed. With some work, it could easily rise to a higher class of quality.

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 — ~~~~