Jump to content

User:AaronAspelund/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evaluate an article

[edit]

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

  • Name of article: Badminton in the United States
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate
    • I chosen this article because I have always had a passion for sports( I love sports) and this was the closest article that I could find to sports.

Lead

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
    • No. The topic sentence is very vague.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
    • No it does not
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No, the lead is one sentence saying that Badminton is not popular in the United states in comparison to tennis.
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • VERY CONCISE

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Content

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes it is relevant but very minimal
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • Lots of missing content

Content evaluation

[edit]

Tone and Balance

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
    • Yes the article is very neutral.
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • There is no bias the information provided is fact straight
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • There are not enough view points. There are a total of 5 sentences max on this article page.
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • Maybe alittle. It says tennis is more popular than badminton but that statement is backed up with a source.

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Sources and References

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • They are backed up by the reliable secondary source yes.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • They appear to be thorough but they could be updated or use better sources
  • Are the sources current?
    • Some sources are out of date.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes some of the links work!

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Organization

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • Yes very easy to read. Very short
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • No errors
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • Yes it is broken into 3 sections

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Images and Media

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
    • No there are no images
  • Are images well-captioned?
    • No images
  • Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
    • No images
  • Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
    • No images

Images and media evaluation

[edit]

Checking the talk page

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • No conversations behind the scenes
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • The article is rated as Start-Class. It is low importance on the Wiki-project scale.
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • N/A

Talk page evaluation

[edit]

Overall impressions

[edit]
Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • The article is a young article that need a lot more details. There are maybe 200 words max on the page.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • Organized, concise and easy to read
  • How can the article be improved?
    • More detial
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • Underdeveloped

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Optional activity

[edit]
  • 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 — ~~~~

  • Link to feedback: