User:Alexdasilva47/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: Defensive Runs Saved
 * Interest in advanced baseball metrics

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead briefly describes Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) and its variability from traditional fielding stats.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Article does not have multiple sections, but instead just four paragraphs explaining.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, just a lead, lack of a full written article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Lead is concise, entire article as a whole is quite lacking

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Lack of much content overall.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Content that is available is up to date throught the last full season, i.e. the 2020 season is not included.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Much content is missing, such as calculations and variables/factors
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I suppose you can say sabermetrics are an underrepresented topic as it it somewhat new to baseball and not fully welcomed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Implied claims are present but two opposing views. In simplier terms, the two biases are a sabermetric mindset and a traditional mindset.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No. Both views are equally present.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Article does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the little information provided is creditably sourced.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all sources are of available literature, many of the sources being baseball statistical websites.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Sources are current, similarly to data included.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Sources come from a wide variety of different knowledgeable baseball sources. Do not include historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Article is well written and easy to understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammar errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Article is well organized but just four paragraphs.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Conversations of how in depth to go. How much should be explained.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Article is a "stub", therefore it is deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Have not talked about DRS in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Stub, good lead but needs more information.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Good lead that briefly describes the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding content
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped due to its lack of content.

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: