User:Asp.woods/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/400_metres )

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.)

I chose this article to evaluate because the 400 meter sprint is something I am very knowledgeable about. I have ran this race since the 6th grade so it is important to me because it is something I love to do and know a lot about. This article also matters to me because I want people looking up what the 400m sprint is to be informed correctly about it and read the most important things about it. My preliminary impression of this article is that it is an ok article. There is a lot of work that could be done to make it better and more informative. There are also many spelling and gramatical errors throughout the article.

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.)

Not everything in this article was the most relevant to the topic. There was information about past winners and paraolympic 400 meter records that could be made into its own page. This would keep this article focused on just what the 400 meter sprint is, how it's completed, and how to compete in it. There also was information that was outdated in this article. Since this article was edited there have been faster times that people have ran and there are new records in so this information was outdated and needed to be updated. There was also information that was missing. The 400m is also ran on an indoor track and is a lot different than on an outdoor track. There was no information in this article about the indoor 400 meter sprint or information about how to run it and the records for men and women for the indoor 400m. Other missing information that has to do with notable equity gaps was that the men's 400m was started as an event to be able to compete in, in 1896, whereas women weren't able to compete in this event until 1964. This is of historical significance because for a long time women were not allowed to compete in track and field competitions. This article had no information about this historical moment and its significance.

The article did come from a neutral position and that was something that was done well throughout the entire article. I didn't feel like there was a viewpoint that was over or under represented throughout the article so that was also something that was done well throughout the article. I checked through a couple of the citations and all the links worked and the information was portrayed from the source correctly. The sources supported the claims in this article and they were reliable and appropriate for this article. The information and citations mostly also were linked to other wikipedia pages so I would have to dive deeper into each citation to make sure that all of the information from the sources was factual and current. They all did seem to be very neutral sources which makes them a better source for information. The sources I checked all came from wikipedia, it would help the article more if there was a larger, more diverse array of authors and publications that the information came from.

Looking at the talk page there are conversations taking place that do address a lot of the information that I also think needs edited, including the need for updating records and past winners and times. There is also conversations about some of the grammatical errors that are in the article and the sources needing to be more diverse. The article is rated C-Class, Mid-importance. I agree with this rating and think it is very accurate. This article isn't part of any WikiProjects.

Overall the article needs some work. There are errors to be fixed and information that needs to be updated. The images and sources are all clear and strong in helping the article standout. The sources could be made more diverse and the lead section could be made stronger. Overall it isn't a bad article but definitely has room for improvement.