User:Coopermull/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Boston Bruins

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 have chose to evaluate this specific article because I am a huge fan of the Boston Bruins.

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.)

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Relatively concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all but the majority
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough and accurate, and reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? Current sources and sources from the past
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there is a variety of diverse authors.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) I believe most of the sources available are the best possible sources but there is always room for more.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links work and are up to date.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Very well written article, concise and clear, easy to read for all ages.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Very little
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is incredibly well-organized, broken down into concise sections that do reflect on the major points of the topic.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, great images that enhance understanding of the topic for the readers
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, all images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes,the images on this site are visually appealing and well laid out.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?  In the topic section there is a re-occuring conversation behind the scenes about players' current status in the league being incorrect.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated (B-Class) and is a part of the WikiProject Ice Hockey and WikiProject United States / Massachusetts / Boston
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It talks about how the Bruins are notorious in the state of Massachusetts and even in New England.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? B Status
 * What are the article's strengths? Very concise, accurate and well organized
 * How can the article be improved? The Bruins are having a historical season this year so I would like to write some more on this season.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is very up to date week to week, for example the Winter Classic was a couple weeks ago and there is already a ton of information on it. Very well developed article that will continue to produce more information in the future about the Bruins.