User:Collin Hendricks/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: Field goal
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because I have a good understanding and knowledge of the topic of the article.

Lead

Guiding questions

Yes the article's topic is clearly described and done so in a concise way. The lead does not include a description of the article's major sections, and the lead does include a few sentences of information that are not present in the rest of the article. They described the dimensions and location of the goal posts, and I do not see a section in the rest of the article continuing that information. Overall the lead is pretty concise.

• 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?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions

Yes I would say the content of this article is mostly relevant to the topic, and it is up to date. I think some content in the Successful field goals section does not need to be there. I think this category should contain briefly what is gained from a successful field goal rather than the rules for each football organization on how the game proceeds after the successful field goal. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. I think they could include the first kickers from underrepresented populations and their accomplishments.

• 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

Guiding questions

This article doest a very good job of taking a neutral position. There were not any claims that I noticed that seemed heavily bias. There was also a good balance on the amount of information for each respective section and this article did not attempt to persuade the reader to favor one position.

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions

Not all facts in this article were backed up by a reliable source of information. A lot of the sources were from news articles. There were also areas where citations needed to be added in text. The sources were thorough as they do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are current and up to date as well and were written by a divers spectrum of authors. There are a lot of sources from all sorts of people although I did not notice any that are historically marginalized. I tried a few links and they seem to work well.

• 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?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions

This article was well-written. It was easy to read and follow and simple enough for someone who knows nothing about the topic to gain some knowledge. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors while reading. Overall I thought the article was well-organized and covered the major points.

• 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

Guiding questions

The article does have a few images and one video that enhance the understanding of the topic, but I think some pictures could be captioned a little better. All of the images adhere to the copyright regulations and are laid out in a visually appealing way as well.

• 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?

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

A lot of conversations about this topic revolve around getting rid or fixing different sections. There are a lot of sections that are not included in the public article because they seem to only hurt the overall article rather than help it. This article is rated C-class and a part of three WikiProjects. Wikipedia discussed this topic is not much different from the way we've talked about it in class.

• 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

Guiding questions

The overall status of this article is average I would say. The strengths of this article is the simplicity of it as well as the organization and easy read that it is. This article can be improved by adding more citations to areas that need them, as well as including more information into sections like successful field goal. Overall this article is complete and well developed.

• 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?

Optional activity

• 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: