User:Victoriaalfieri/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?

Talk:Philosophy of artificial intelligence - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I have always had an interest in artificial intelligence (AI), and particularly enjoy discussing philosophical questions regarding the matter. Artificial intelligence is a growing field, working its way into every aspect of life. Thus, it is important to engage in dialogue about the subject. My initial impression of AI was a mixture of hope and fear. I believe many people have been told that AI will lead to another war or at the very least take jobs away. The hope, however, is due to the prospect of having AI automate difficult, and dangerous tasks in order to create a more prosperous, and efficient society.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence is effective in providing a concise yet detailed description with understandable language. The content of the article does quite a good job of covering relevant and up-to-date topics. However, the article does lack some important ethical questions. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is trained through massive amounts of data. This means the data needs to be completely unbiased, otherwise the AI can discriminate due to that lack of data. For example, a facial recognition system that was only trained and analyzed white faces as its data would likely not recognize faces belonging to other races. This is a significant problem within the realm of AI and should be considered when discussing the philosophy of it. Despite this, the tone and organization of the article is objective and does not contain bias towards a particular narrative. Pictures and media are sparingly used, but each one serves a purpose and is helpful in visualizing the text. The sources come from a range of places but are good in quality and the links do work.

Overall, the article and its talk page are very strong and provide the essential and some supporting details about concepts and questions for the philosophy of artificial intelligence. It is well developed and written. The only improvements would be adding additional questions that relate more to the human-computer interaction and relationship.