User:ABBrooks10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Tracy Claxton

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.)

First of all, this article has been classified as a C-class article, so there are likely aspects that need to be improved upon (right away, I saw that there are no images, and there is little information). Additionally, this article is about a basketball player, and as a sports fan, I feel as though I will enjoy reading and editing the article (and, since I know a good amount about basketball, I feel as though I can improve the article more than I could improve one about a subject I know less about).

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.)

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? No- it says she is a former basketball player, but it only mentions her play in high school instead of giving a broader idea of who she is (also, it says she amassed 2,420 points in 1980, which is also too specific for the first sentence).
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It mentions most of what is later talked about in the article, but it is choppy and not well-written.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is not overly detailed, but it is poorly written.

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? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? I believe so; it talks about her coaching career up to 2022.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think there is content that does not belong, but there is definitely content missing. The article is rather short, but what really jumped out to me is that there are only two sentences in the "Personal life" section, and it does not give much detail about the gaps in her playing career (why she did not play certain years, and why she transferred from Kansas to Old Dominion).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This article is about a woman (specifically, a female basketball player), which are often underrepresented on Wikipedia.

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? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not see any bias in the article one way or another.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

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? Most of the sentences after the introduction have a link at the end, but there are a few exceptions. There are a good number of links to other articles (mainly in the intro section), but there is a clear lack of citations in the introduction section.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? They include a good amount of information about her statistics and what she did on the basketball court, but there is very little about her personal life (beyond her coaching career).
 * Are the sources current? Some of them were written more recently, but some are rather dated (the oldest I saw was from 1980).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? It is hard to tell- there are only so many sources containing information about the subject, and many of the articles are behind paywalls.
 * 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.) I do not think there are much better sources out there; a lot of the sources are just articles from local publishers (besides the websites that have her stats).
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

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? It is concise, but mainly because it is so short and lacks so much information. It is also not very easy to read, and there are clear gaps in her story that need to be filled.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not find any spelling errors or any egregious grammatical mistakes, but certain sentences could certainly use some rewording.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It is broken down into sections, but there could be a lot more information (and thus more sections).

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

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? There are no conversations on the talk page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C-class article, and it is a part of several WikiProjects (women articles, United States articles, biography articles, etc.)
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It looks as if it has not been talked about much at all, which further highlights the issue of women not getting enough representation on Wikipedia.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It has some basic information about the topic, but it is not a great article.
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a solid foundation- there is a good amount of information about what she did on the basketball court, especially in high school.
 * How can the article be improved? There is a lot of missing information; there is little information on her personal life beyond her playing career, and there are clearly missing pieces in the description that is present on the page (i.e. why did she transfer schools?).
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is far from complete. I would say it is more underdeveloped than poorly developed (I cannot blame the writers to date for the lack of available sources about the subject), but there is still certainly room for improvement when it comes to both information and overall structure.