User:EEEpidemiologist/Evaluate an Article

Article selected was Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season 2005

Lead section

 * The Lead Section does contain a brief description of what Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season 2005 is. However, if one did not know what MTG is, or what the Pro Tour is, they would not get very much from the first sentence.
 * The Lead section contains mention of the first round of induction in the MTG Hall of Fame which took place in 2005 but does not discuss that topic in the remainder of the article.
 * The Lead section is concise but contains unnecessary information.

Content
While the content is well rounded, relevant, and accurate as far as my knowledge on the subject goes, there is room for improvement with wikilinks to give the reader further information on the subject matter. For example there was not a wikilink or any link to explain what a Rochester Draft is despite the article relaying that information and providing the information that the 2005 Pro Tour Nagoya was the last to employ a Rochester Draft format.

Tone and Balance
The tone is neutral.

Sources and References

 * Tournament outcomes needed cited sources and some analyses of player's decks did not include sources or citations.
 * More sources would be ideal especially considering there are other better written descriptions of these concepts on other websites.
 * Links work.

Organization and writing quality
The article is sorted based on the tournaments that made up the 2005 Pro Tour. Quality and organization were satisfactory.

Images and Media

 * There were no images but there were brackets and tables provided for the tournament details. Images would've enriched the article.

Talk page discussion

 * No discussions on this particular page
 * Rated C-Class and is part of the WikiProject Magic: The Gathering.

Overall impressions

 * The article could be improved with more sources, a refinement of the information provided, and some clarification and elaboration on certain content points.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

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.)