User:Gagasantos/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: Expected goals
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This is a very relevant analytics topic with lots of articles and research. With that in mind, I believe its a topic I have learned a lot about and feel more or less comfortable evaluating an article regarding the topic./\

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No, the lead sentence is very broad and doesn't describe the metric, only states that it is a metric.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead section doesn't summarize key points.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it doesn't, it is very short so that isn't a problem.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is too broad, not much description of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * It is relevant but could be more relevant. There isn't very much proof of anything or visualizes about use cases. It seems like they only talk about the history of the approach.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is very update. This article shows the progression of the metric and it's history. It shows how the metric has changed over the years. I do believe it could use more proofs/equations about the most modernized approach.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The main description/summary of the article is very weak and should be strengthen. People looking at this topic for the first time should get more of an introduction from the introduction.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, it talks about the metric from many different stand points and different approaches. Shows readers how the metric came to be what it is.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * This wiki page does seem to be biased, it does a good job of providing many different sources and perspectives but uses only primary resources which are inherently biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Maybe over represented, it repeats details a couple times and mentions how several people came up with the same idea.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * This article frequently uses primary sources and does not have many secondary sources to back up the statements from the primary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * It provides a compilation of very relevant articles, even since their publication which is important, but is missing on secondary sources and more detailed papers.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The most recent source is from 2012, there has been more research done in recent history that is not accounted for.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * No, there should be more sources, there are several duplicate sources in the references tab.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I did not think it was easy to read. I was expecting to get a clear concise description of the agreed Expected Goals method and was not given that. It introduced several author's opinion on what expected goals meant to them and their specific use case however the article needs a clear overarching definition and references.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * This article only has one section and its is not very clear, it talked a little about lacking a clear description earlier, but another problem is that the article is almost all quotations. There needs to be some description as to why these quotes are important and studies that were done with the quotes in mind. I was expecting this article to be more technical

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No images are used on this page, this is a huge disadvantage for the page. This topic needs images to bring clarity to the idea that shots at different position on the field will have different outcomes. Including more images would also do a better job of giving more pages and links to cite. This is a very technical concept and section should be dedicated to different visuals.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images are used.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images are used.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images are used.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * This page was recently debated being deleted and voted in favor of staying. They found that this article has fundamental issues that are restricting it from being at the quality that wikipedia want. They believe it needs more links, more secondary sources, a bad lead section and too many long quotes.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of WikiProject Football and WikiProject Sports and was rated start-class and low importance in both.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article doesn't have much commentary in the talk section but it is interesting to see how articles are rated and the different criteria and systems in place when evaluating a post.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I agree with the talk forum that this article is a start. It has entry level detail that is very specific about one regard which is history but it needs to be modernized. It has something and gives readers an entry level understanding as well as some resources but its not at the level of quality of other wiki pages.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * One strength is that it was not deleted. This may seem nuanced but the forum found that this topic is important clearly should be explored more. It also provides an in depth analysis of how expect goals came to be from different perspectives and different sports.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This pages needs visuals. Expected goals is a difficult concept to grasp and visuals will help give insight on what the idea actually means and its different use cases. This page should also have many more links, there has been so much research on this subject recently and so many projects created using the concept of expected goals as its parent that a really well developed section to subsequent ideas can be made.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Definitely underdeveloped. When this page was last updated and created, expected goals was a very new idea with lots of research still needing to be done, it was just an idea. Now, there are many sources and publications that could be used to renovate this article.

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: