User:Brynlangrock/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: I chose the C-class category "American Football Articles" and within that I chose "Pistol offense"
 * Category:C-Class American football articles, Talk:Pistol offense
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I really enjoy American Football and I thought it would be interesting to learn more about the Pistol offense because I'm not very familiar with it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence could be more concise, but does cover the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, it does not describe the major sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, a lot of the Lead would be better suited in the "advantages" portion of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is overly detailed and should save most of it's explanation for other sections of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content in the existing sections revolves around the use of the Pistol offense.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * No, more current games/situations could be referenced.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, should have more information about the formations disadvantages, as well as history of the person who developed it, and different iconic games or plays in which the formation was used.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral, and discusses technical and contextual facts about the football formation.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the topic is inherently very neutral. Maybe there is a bias more towards the formation being a good football formation because there are only facts about it's advantages and not disadvantages.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The advantages of the formation are overrepresented as opposed to its disadvantages.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it's pretty straightforward.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there are many secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The article could benefit from more sources from technical football books rather than just news articles.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, most of them range from 2010-2013, with the exception of one from 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, they seem to all have been written by white men.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links work except for one, to silverandblackdaily.com, which seems that the domain name had been transferred since the publishing of the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * For the most part the article is concise, except for the section "Advantages" which is a bit redundant and could have been shortened.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The information is broken down well and when reading there is a nice logical progression of background knowledge, history, then further information.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the diagram and two real pictures demonstrate the pistol offense well in a way that is easy to pick up on.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, but the diagram picture could be expanded upon.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, they are all linked to the Creative Commons
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The article could utilize more current/better quality photos for the in-game pictures.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * On the talk page there are a few suggestions of additions to the page, the first team to use the Pistol offense, and a correction to one game pointed out on the page that was listed as the wrong year.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a C-class article, in the American Football WikiProject
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I can see why this is in the C-class status it is in, it has a lot of areas it could expand upon, but is overall a solid article.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article goes into great detail about the formation in football terms, while also being easily accessible to someone who may not watch football.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * There are parts of the article that are redundant, for example the section "Advantages" is pretty much completely covered in the Lead. Also, it there are topics the article could expand to to make it more complete. For example, including disadvantages of the formation, or famous plays using the Pistol formation.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The existing content in the article is well developed, however the article has many areas it could expand into for it to be complete.

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: