User:Guevarab1/Evaluate an Article

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? Overly detailed

Content

 * 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? Not really but kind of

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? underrepresented
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * 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.) No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and Writing Quality

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Pretty much yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? A couple yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes understandable
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, although there are only a few

Talk Page Discussion

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? What is missing and making phrases should be changed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated a C and yes it is part of two WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This one is a bit more explanatory.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? They status is good
 * What are the article's strengths? It is very explanatory and gives well descriptions of topics.
 * How can the article be improved? Add how each country has been affected by it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed but more can be added.

Which article are you evaluating?
CONCACAF

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it's something I know about. It matters because it's something I enjoy knowing about and watching, which is soccer. My preliminary impression was that it's well descriptive and has lots of information.

Evaluate the article
Evaluating the article off CONCACAF was very easy because it had all the key aspects it needed. The article has everything the article needed to have. It was very descriptive as well. It didn't have much image and I think more should be added because I looked very plain and boring. It was well-organized not the way I would liked but it was well. The article had reliable sources and the links that were attached worked well. The talk-page discussion really was just speaking about how somethings were missing and what phrases needed to be changed. Overall well written article. This is my exercise for Week 2.