User:Aguila299/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: Talk:2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season
 * I chose this article because I have always been a huge Arsenal fan and I believe this was one of the best seasons I've watched.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No it doesn't have an introductory sentence or anything close to it.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? It has very little information regarding the article which I believe makes it harder for the reader to keep up.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No everything thing included is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No I don't believe it was.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes It is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes for the time period it created it was.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes there could've been more content about the players and how well they did in the season.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes the article seemed pretty neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there weren't any biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes, the players and performance that season was.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it didn't seem so.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? If so it's very hard to find article isn't really organized.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources that were provided seemed thorough.
 * Are the sources current? They were current for the time period that the page was made.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No the article is not clear or easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it doesn't seem so.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?No the article is not well organized and is all put together with very little spacing in between.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article included a table and no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? The table was well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There were no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There were none to be laid out in an appealing way.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I don't any conversations are going on behind the scenes because this is such an old topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-Class and yes it is part of wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia makes this topic seem a lot more important while in class we moved past it relatively fast.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? The table and the article under it were this pages strongest attributes.
 * How can the article be improved? The article needs to be organized and more information needs to be added to it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think that this article would be considered underdeveloped due to how much it's missing.

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:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aguila299/Evaluate_an_Article?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_evaluate_article