User:Jr abarca/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
= Evaluate an Article Questions: =

Lead:
A good lead section define defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

Questions about Lead:
1.     Does the lead include an introduction sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic? Yes, the lead made it very clear for me to understand the whole article, and get an idea for it.

2.    Does the lead include a brief description of the article’s major sections? Yes, and in the lead it shows us the major topics of the article.

3.    Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn’t) No, it does not everything in the lead gives us what the topic and what will be in the article.

4.    Is the lead concise, or is it overly detailed? I believe that it is very concise because the lead does not get to much into detail which is very nice for the reader because it gives us more want to read the whole article.

Content:

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

Questions about Content:
1.     Is the article’s content relevant to the topic? Yes, the articles content is relevant to the topic of the article.

2.    Is the content up to date? Yes, the last time that this article was edited was on 3/10/2023 so I believe that it is up to date.

3.    Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, I believe everything that is in the article everything belongs here and I already knew pretty much of the stuff in the article so everything is on point.

4.    Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia‘s equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, not really that I have read it has not gone into an equity gap whatsoever.

Tone and Balance:
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Questions about Tone and Balance:
1.     Is the article neutral? Yes, I believe everything in the article is very neutral it did not take any sides whatsoever that I have noticed everything has stayed on the suns season.

2.    Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No nothing in the articles seems to be biased like I stated in the last question. Everything in the article seems to be very neutral and smooth ,well written.

3.    Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented? No not at all everything in the article is represented and presented very well actually it’s giving me sort of new information.

4.    Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

5.    Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not at all, everything I have read has been very informational the article has not persuaded me whatsoever.

Sources and References:
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand when possible, this means academic and peer reviewed publications or scholarly books.

Questions about Sources and References:
1.     Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything has been backed up by a reliable source and everything is cited already and really easy to access.

2.    Are the sources thorough – i.e., do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, every source is very helpful and all of the cited works are very helpful and it shows everything that was talked about in the article.

3.    Are the sources current? Yes, all of the sources are current and every single one of the sources are linked in already.

4.    Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? No every single one of the authors that I can see are very neutral and they don’t not try to persuade you at all.

5.    Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, they do include some of the past suns roster and very important players that have made a huge impact.

6.    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.) I am very iffy about this one because I have read many articles in the past about this specific season and in this article, I enjoyed reading it because it has not persuaded me in any type.

7.     Check a few links. Do they work? I have clicked on most of all the links and every single one has helped me out and has worked out and they are mostly up to date.

Organization and Writing Quality
The writing should be clear and professional; the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

Questions for Organization and Writing Quality
1.     Is the article well written – i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy-to-read? Yes, very easy to read and very enjoyable to read.

2.    Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it has not had any grammatical or spelling errors everyone that has worked on this article has done a good job.

3.    Is the article well-organized – i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, every major point is broken down into sections and the authors speaks about every single one of the major topics.

Images and Media:
1.     Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, images but they do include graphs.

2.    Are images well captioned? No, Images.

3.    Do all images adhere to Wikipedia ‘s copyright regulations? No, images.

4.    Are the images laid out in a visually-appealing way? No images.

Talk Page Discussion:
The article’s Talk Page - and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there - can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn’t think of.

Questions for Talk Page Discussion:
1.     What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Well, that I have noticed it has mostly talked about the seasons,players,and how well of our record was going so I believe that nothing was talked about behind the scenes.

2.    How is the article rated?

3.    Is it a part of any wiki projects?

Questions for Overall Impressions:
1.     What is the article ‘s overall status?

2.    What are the article’s strengths? One strength is that it is very well written and very helpful to understand and read.

3.    How can the article be improved? I believe that one thing that can be improved is that they can add some images.

4.    How would you assess the articles completeness – i.e. is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? There is nothing really that I should add everything in the article is very well developed and well written.

Examples of good feedback:
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms; the most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.