User:Craig lane5/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.) Health issues in athletics

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 because it is a serious issue and has and still is affecting many lives and hurting many people.

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.)

The lead does include a introductionary sentence does include a strong intro and informs us about what were learning about.Although I believe the introduction did not have many facts and text evidence from the wikipedia page.They didn't bring up to much irrelevant facts other than they didn't talk much about concussions and how big of a affect that can have on athletes.They also were a little too overly detailed and didn't keep the reader on there toes and wondering what will happen next and how it will happen.

The articles content is relevant to the wikipedia page because all its talking about is the way athletes are getting injured or ways they're injuring themselves to try and make themselves better.I believe this content is up to date because not only was it published this year but its talking about situations that are still going on as we speak.I believe all the content is there about how athletes mental health have changed because of sports but they didn't speak about there physical health like back pain, head trauma, concussions.This article doesn't have much historical facts because most of the problems they're talking about have just became known or talked about more than what they were these past few years.

I believe this article is bias towards athletes and how sports is having a negative affect on them.They say athletes have had a dramatic increase in mental health issues the past few years.I think they talked a little too much about mental health and didn't include much about physical health.I believe minority and fringe points are heavily included in this wikipedia page.I believe this article heavily persuades everybody too think there's only negatives in playing sports and there are no positives when simply this isn't true at all.

I believe they backed up all there information with a secondary source of information.They do affect the available literature on this wikipedia page.All the sources are current and talk about problems that are happening as we speak.It is written by multiple people backed up with different opinions of many others.They also talk about historical events like they talked about how in 2010 48 youths died from sports injuries.I believe there are other sites that have stronger points and more details about sports injuries although this wikipedia page does include some interesting facts that are very important.The links do woerk and provided me with more interesting and cool facts I never knew.

I believe this article is well written and has strong points and details although they struggled to include more historical facts and how it has gotten worst over time.I do not see any spelling or grammar issues in this writing.I believe tjois article is well organized they separated the deaths, mental healthy, and concussions and pulled it all together at the end.

The article does not include any images which makes readers like me less interested because I'm a visual person.There are no images that show the affects on the brain which could've been a big detail and help us visual see the problems it can cause and how bad it can affect the brain.I would've added images of the brain and I would've broke down the key details about how the brain is affected from concussions and how we can prevent that and be safer.

It gives too much wide range and doesn't include a certain topic and gives many topics about many different things.This causes the readers to be confused or overwhelmed with the amount of topic and evidence it is giving to the readers.I believe the article has many facts just to wide of a range on its topic and talks about to many different things at one time and I believe is rated kinda bad because of the confusing facts they're giving.I think it differs because it only talks about mental issues and mostly in men not women and also doesn't talk about the physical problems it can cause on athletes.

I believe the articles status is not good because it talks about too many things and doesn't stick to its main topic.I believe it has many evidence and many details that could help the reader better understand the mental health of athletes.I believe this article could be improved by simply typing less and talking about more about the topic instead of other things.I believe this article has a lot of information and could help us better understand the mental health of athletes but I believe its underdeveloped because its providing too much and not enough information about what were really talking about