User:CriticalThinker91/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clutch (sports)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I find it interesting how people can perform better when the stakes are higher. I want to know more about what feeds into that specific skill set. I want to know is it something that can be trained or is it something that is inherent in the individual.

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 does a job of isolating the key points of topic. It states what is going to be discussed, the manner of study behind the subject and the different conclusions that have been reached.

The content is good but limited. I believe that examples of how different coaches train their athletes would be a good addition. Examples of players that excel in high stress situations as well as their image may also add some more substance to the article.

The tone was neutral. It felt like I was given the data and not being coerced into a specific way of thinking.

Reference and sourcing was good but it is quite dated. New studies and articles should be added to show that it is still relative or that the theory has be debunked. The format for the source work is good and orderly.

I believe that the writing is easy to follow and well written. Each new heading seemed to stem from the one before it.

There were no images but I believe images may improve the article or at least garner more attention from the reader.

The talk page isn't positive. Discussions are in the realm of "more information needed". Which I agree with. As well as an update to the sources.

Overall I believe this is a good start for the topic. It gives the reader some thoughts but also makes us think of what has been do in the study since 2016. It's biggest strength is getting the reader to think and inspire further research. This is also its biggest flaw. Not having enough information or even more recent findings makes the article seem abandoned. I would say that the article is in an ongoing status.