User:Gurekosn/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Concussions in American football

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am very interested in this topic. I believe this topic is a very big deal and needs to be addressed. I picked this specific article because i believe it needs some improvement on the information and content. This matters because this is a serious topic that many people want to know more about from a neutral position. My preliminary impression was that it was a very full article but i could tell it was covering a lot of information. There was a lot of information provided and I think a lot of it might be unnecessary and other necessary information is lost.

Evaluate the article
To start this evaluation I am going to start by evaluating the first paragraph (lead). The first sentence did a good job of defining the topic and providing good information. The lead did not provide the best information for what was to come and did not really mention most of it. The lead provides information on a study done on mice that seemed very odd to be included. I searched the rest of the article and it was never mentioned again. So, this information was not needed in the lead. The lead is very concise until the portion with the mice and then it starts to get overly detailed and confusing.

The articles content is not all relevant to the topic. The topic is Concussions in American Football. Throughout the article it mentions a study done on mice, concussions in women's ice hockey, men's wrestling, and Canadian football. While all of that added to the information and was used to compare to American Football I do not think it needed to be included. The topic was about American Football and needs to be centered around that. The content is a few years old but is still relevant enough information to be considered up-to-date.

The article is neutral for the most part. There are some parts where a little bias or one sided arguments come in to play but overall it is pretty neutral. There are not claims that are heavily biased but some that could come off as a little biased. All the viewpoints listed and mentioned, on topic or not, were very well thought out and represented well. The article at times seems as if it is trying to persuade readers to be against CTE and certain rules or other ways the sports are played. While all the information is correct some might be leaning more towards proof as to why it is bad instead of information about it.

All of the facts given in the article have been backed by other reliable sources. The sources are current to this topic and provide good information on the topic. I think the sources chosen for this page are perfectly tailored for this specific information. Any other sources might be used for fishing information to fill the page. The links I checked do work.

The article is written well but is a bit jumpy at times. Some information and paragraphs did not need to be added and they cause confusion when reading. It is easy to read but does not make the most sense at times. Thankfully I did not run into any grammatical or spelling errors. All of the paragraphs are broken down well and are separated well.

Unfortunately, the article does not provide any graphics or images that would help my understanding. It is a very blank page in terms of images.

There were a few conversations in the talk page and all were about some sort of addition to the article. Most were about additional information suggestions. The articles strengths are in the information provided. Wether relevant or not the research provided was good research. The weaknesses came from the irrelevant information and confusing additions. Another weakness is also the lack of images of any kind.