User:HaydenD1010/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
NCAA Native American mascot decision

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I am Native American and a college athlete so this relates to me very well. Discrimination has been a problem for centuries, so this is just one step in fixing discrimination at the collegiate level.

Lead Section
Yes, the article includes a defining introductory sentence that clearly describes the articles topic, it describes that in 2005 the NCAA distributed a "self evaluation" too colleges around the country that may have offensive imagery with their mascot choice. It then briefly gives information about the policies and the conversations colleges were having about their decisions, which leads into the major sections as being the "controversies" and the "waivers granted". All of the information given is presented further in the article. The lead is very precise and doesn't over detail anything, it is very to the point.

Content
The articles content is very relevant to the topic, it presents changes, controversies, and waivers granted which are presented in the article. The content is up to to date, the last time it was edited was April 26, 2021.There is no missing content or anything that doesn't belong in the article. This article doesn't deal with any of wikipedia equity gaps or talk about underrepresented topics or ideas.

Tone and Balance
The article is very neutral, it seems to be written from a neutral point of view. They're seem to be no claims that are heavily biased or one sided, or topics talked about that are over or under represented. The discussion about Native Americans is very accurately described and nothing offensive or rude was said. There is no persuasion only factual evidence and supporting information given, the article does not try to win over the reader in any form.

Sources and Reference
All of the facts given in the article are backed up by supporting evidence given in the sources, the sources are very thorough and seem to be given by reliable sources. The sources are current to the time when this was a big discussion starting from 2013 and even still getting evidence from 2020, which is recently relevant. There is an array of authors, it is not just written by a few authors, they include their names and historical data when needed in the article. This topic is very hard to talk about, the sources given are very reliable, I do not believe you could find any better sources related to the topic. The links given on the reference page work.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is very well written, it is clear and easy to understand and read. There is no grey areas in the article that make you confused or misunderstood. There is no grammatical or spelling errors in the article. This article is well organized and written very strategically, the information is given in order and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media
The article does not include images on the wikipedia page itself, but if you haver over the links there are images that give you the mascots of the colleges or name changes that had happened. There are no images on the actually article itself, so there can't be captions for pictures that aren't presented, as well as the copyright regulations. Due to their being no images, they could not be a way to lay them out in a appealing way, not saying it can never happen, but there are no images to further this.

Talk Page Discussion
There really is no behind the scene conversations going on about this article. The only thing they talk about on the talk page is the modifications of the external links, they added a archive to the article. This article is part of 14 WikiProjects, the wikipedia talk about the article more in depth then we ever would in class, we would most likely only talk about the lead section and nothing more, at least in out classes I've been in we would hardly ever look at the references or anything if that nature.

Overall Impression
I believe the article is very informative and in good nature. The articles strengths include the diversity of references and sources it uses, there isn't just one web page they look at, they ac tally look at almost 60 different websites to gather all their information. The article can improve by importing images, I think images are a good way for people to understand the text even better, good educational images can really help out some readers. The article is very complete, it seems to be well-organized and developed very well, overall I believe this article is one of the best wikipedia articles I have ever read, simply because there were few, if any errors, and it was very interesting and informative to the reader (me).