User:Jgrigull21/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: 2001–02 Chelsea F.C. season
 * Chelsea FC is one of my most passionate subjects

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: it's a very broad overview but i believe it gets the job done. Could be slightly more incite to the events of the season
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: no it does not
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: it is definitely concise

Lead evaluation
The lead was almost too brief. it was clear and concise but gave little insight into the body of the article. There could be a greater preview of the signings and controversy of the season.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?: yes, it has good content
 * Is the content up-to-date?: yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: there could be more details regarding the signings made at the time and the events of the season

Content evaluation
The articles content is good and up to date. As the topic is historical there has not been any necessary updates. There is also nothing factual that is missing but there could be more insight into interesting portions of the season.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?: Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No

Tone and balance evaluation
the article takes not opinion. It is very factual and objective. because of the black and white nature of the subject there is no ideas present that do not get represented fairly.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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 they offer good context to the claims
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
the sources are good and applicable to the article. Some of the formatting has not held up over time but it is still effective. There are no things facts not backed up

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: yes arguably to concise
 * 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?: it could be organized better, the way the season results are formatted are not ideal

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: they enhance the subject but are not ideal
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
the media is applicable and helpful but it is not formatted very effectively. Some of the information on the season is lost due to the size of the graphs. The media has good captions but there are not perfect. They contain the information but don't deliver it well and concisely. For example the image of the 4-8 placings that season.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There is only an alert from an automated machine showing a link is dead. while there is little discussion the article is part of a greater wiki project discussing association football. it was rated class C thus my want to evaluate it. Well it leaves little room for opinion as it is a historical event so it was easy to see that.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article is effective but it is essentially dead. it is a class C so there is room for improvement. I would argue that it has very good factual information but it does little to go into the details of the subject. There could have been more research done regarding interesting highs and lows of the season. The opinion of the manager by the fans.

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: