User:APC04OU/sandbox

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does. It describes the rivalry between the two countries.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, just describes what the rivalry is about.
 * 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?
 * Very concise.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes it is.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes it is, to the last match they played.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not that I can see.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * There are some examples of Argentina being defended for situations and Brazil being told it was by chance they've won.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope, just talks about the facts of the rivalry.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * no.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the time of each match, yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes.
 * 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.)
 * Not that I saw. every website says pretty much all the same stuff.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes,very easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Not that I saw.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes.

Talk page discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They are heated conversations about biased topics and use of language native to countries.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * I wouldn't say its a top rated article but it definitely is not the worst.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not spoke about this article.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It is all about the rivalry between these two countries and is updated to the last match.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The facts behind the rivalry.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More information in some of the matches.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say there could be more information in some of the games.