User:ANTTONNY/Evaluate an Article

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: Point forward
  • Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The interest of hybrid basketball players positions.

Lead

Guiding questions
  • 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
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
    • No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
    • Is concise, and not overly detailed.

Lead evaluation

Content

Guiding questions
  • Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
    • Yes
  • Is the content up-to-date?
    • No. The most recent is 5 years ago.
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
    • Some more contents can be added to the page.

Content evaluation

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions
  • Is the article neutral?
    • Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
    • No
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
    • No
  • Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
    • No

Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References

Guiding questions
  • Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
    • Yes, and mostly sports articles and news.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
    • Yes
  • Are the sources current?
    • The most recent source is 5 years ago.
  • Check a few links. Do they work?
    • Yes

Sources and references evaluation

Organization

Guiding questions
  • Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
    • No, it could be more clear on the role and responsibilities of Point forward.
  • Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
    • Yes
  • Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
    • It was broken down into sections. However, description regarding the characteristics of Point foward is much needed.

Organization evaluation

Images and Media

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

Images and media evaluation

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions
  • What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
    • No conversations
  • How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
    • C-Class, WikiProject Basketball
  • How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
    • No conversations

Talk page evaluation

Overall impressions

Guiding questions
  • What is the article's overall status?
    • More contents needed.
  • What are the article's strengths?
    • A concise description
  • How can the article be improved?
    • Yes. Grammar, the layout, more description regarding the characteristics, examples of current notable players, images.
  • How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
    • I think the article is developed poorly. Some changes such as description regarding the characteristics, examples of current notable players, and images can improve the overall article completeness.

Overall evaluation

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 — ~~~~