User:JackSport461/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: (Sports analytics)
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I was looking for a brief history of sports analytics and I feel it is important for something like this to be accurate on wikipedia. Especially now with sports analytics popularity growing substantially, a quick google search of sports analytics should return some solid information.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead's introductory sentence does a good job of describing sports analytics. It is clear, concise, and accurate. The Lead does include a description for most of the aspects of the article. The strongest are the descriptions of Moneyball and the gambling aspect of analytics. The definitions of the different types of sports analytics are helpful but off-field analytics are not discussed in the article. Overall, the Lead does a good job of explaining what is to come in the article in a concise manner.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content misses the mark on several fronts. The content is relevant to sports analytics as a whole but misses several key aspects and may need to be updated. For example, the MLB section barely mentions Sabermetrics and the statistics mentioned, such as batting average and OBP have been used for years before sports analytics came to the forefront of the sports world. In addition, the NHL's Corsi statistic is very much out of date. The article does not deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. There are plenty of minority contributors to sports analytics that were not mentioned.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 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

The article is heavily in favor of sports analytics. The section discussing Theo Epstein and the MLB's role in sports analytics talks about the greatness of Epstein and uses flowery wording to suggest analytics are the way of the future. In addition, the applications and examples are all from sports analytics having great success when that is not the case. Adding in some criticism of sports analytics and examples of it failing will do a lot to remove the bias. Overall, the tone and content definitely sway the reader in favor of sports analytics.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Additional sources are certainly needed for this to be a reliable source. There are several primary sources such as "How Dr. Bob Uses Football Analytics for Profitable Gambling" and many biased sources. Virtually all of the sources are pro-sports analytics and the facts are very outdated. There is currently plenty of information on the topic of sports analytics. There are now textbooks and even analytics majors that would provide much better information. Sources are from as many as five years ago and supply a great amount of info for the article. Almost none of the sources I looked at include a diverse spectrum of authors. The links work for the most part. They are just outdated and not very credible for the most part.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is fairly well-written. It is clear, concise, and easy to read and I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. The organization is where the article misses the mark. There are many different aspects of sports analytics and the way the information is presented does not make much sense.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not include any images.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There is one conversation that was started in 2018 and a response in 2019. They both reference changes that were made to improve the article. There has not been any conversations about updating the article, just adding in some more citations and more in-depth analysis. The article is rated poorly, with several flags involving tone and citations. It is a part of WikiProject Sports and WikiProject Statistics.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article's overall status is definitely in a needs major improvement phase. There are several updates that need to be made in order for it to be a credible article. The article does have some good sections such as the history and gambling sections. However, they need to be supplemented with recent, unbiased information. I believe adding in a section for each sport with updated analytics info is the best place to start. Additionally, a section with critiques for sports analytics would definitely create a more balanced article. The article is underdeveloped. There is some good content and some good structure but it does need some major changes.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: