User:AaronAspelund/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: 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

 * 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

Content

 * 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

Tone and Balance

 * 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.

Sources and References

 * 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 * Some sources are out of date.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!

Organization

 * 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

Images and Media

 * 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

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 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

Overall impressions

 * 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

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: