User:Brybene/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2007–08 Los Angeles Lakers season - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because a lot of my knowledge lies in sports, basketball in particular and the 07-08 Lakers article happened to be a team I watched and the article needed some revision.

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.)

The Lead section is very well written, the first sentence is very to the point of what the rest of the article will dive into by letting the reader know it is about the 60th anniversary season for the Lakers franchise in the years 2007-2008. As a whole, the lead paragraph gave an extremely concise overview of 07-08 Lakers season by telling the highlight players, the record, significant events, so on and so forth. Although the content is not up to date because this is an article about a past season, there is immense amounts of information that is all very relevant and useful to really grasp everything a reader might want to know. While there is not really any position that could be taken in this specific article, the author of the article was clearly leaning in favor of the Lakers when talking about playoff game overviews against other teams that could at the time of this season come off as very persuasive to be a Lakers fan. There is 32 total sources used in this article, however the majority of the sources are coming from the same source such as nba.com or espn.com and used multiple times over. Therefore there are not too many sources that aren't reporters or data analysts from major networks. Despite that flaw the overall article is very well put together and separated by different section headers with links to each section at the top of the page. The author used many graphs and tables to organize a lot of important data to look at from the season. There is one thing on the talk page referring to a improperly cited image on the page, however, overall this article is very well put together and organized nicely for readers to get a good amount of information. I still personally believe it is slightly underdeveloped because there is a lot of smaller pieces of information throughout the season that were skipped over and looked at as not important. Regardless the article is very strong despite being able to go a little more in depth but not completely necessary.