User:Davidxosh/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) History of the New York Rangers

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'm familiar and have been studying the new york rangers ever since I've been able to read. It's clear this is a C-class article, hence I think it needs evaluation

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.)

Lead section
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.


 * Yes, lead sentence is good and concise
 * The lead section does not cover introductions to each section
 * The lead section does not include information that is not present in the article
 * Lead section is 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.


 * Relevant topic certainly.
 * The content is not up to date as the 93-present section only really discusses events up to 2009
 * Yes, mainly the more recent runs the rangers have been on have not been covered in the present section
 * No mention of fan history and tradition
 * no dancing larry

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.


 * Generally neutral
 * The potvin sucks chant is completely underrepresented, as well as the fan base history and tradition.
 * Very Ranger fanbase heavy in the writing
 * It makes one like the rangers naturally as you learn about the history but that's more so just an affect of the history, not the writing style

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.


 * All facts are backed by sources for the most part, but the citing is lazy.
 * I would argue the sources are thorough yes.
 * Sources are current to an extent. I didn't really see any sources past 2015. Yes, that's the last time the rangers have been to the cup but they have had many important seasons that are noteworthy after that
 * I'm not sure how to access this. Something I will ask in class******
 * No peer reviewed articles but rather all news based.
 * Multiple links not working

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


 * Yes generally concise and well written
 * No grammatical errors. Lot of listing and short sentences, but I assume that's common with wikipedia
 * Not really well organized. Repetitive in section titles, particularly addressing the present

Images and Media

 * Sort of. I find it weird that there's not a single picture of the rangers with any of their 4 stanley cup titles, the biggest award in hockey. No all star pictures, no additional trophie pictures, and no coaching pictures.
 * Images are very well captioned.
 * There are copyright issues with the images
 * Images are visually appealing and spread 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.


 * A lot about the image use and lack of fan inclusion
 * Rated C-class

Overall impressions

 * I would say there's a lot of work to be done, however it is such a dense topic. There could be a page for every game the rangers have been around so I'm curious on what the middle ground is between covering the history of the team fairly
 * Covers the beginning of the rangers development really well.
 * The present is still part of the teams history and really isn't covered.
 * I would say the article is underdeveloped and deserves a C-class title.