User:Jway04/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: Montreal Canadiens
 * It is my favourite hockey team and I wanted to make sure the information is up to date and proper.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead has an introductory sentence which concisely introduces the topic. The article lead briefly discusses the history and accolades of the Montreal Canadians and prepares the reader for what the article will bring. All information in the lead is also included in the article. The lead is very concise, although there is misinformation surrounding the last time a Canadian team won the Stanley Cup versus the last time the Montreal Canadiens won a Stanley Cup. This was fixed almost immediately.


 * 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 is relevant to the topic. The information is current and content all seemed quite relevant to the article.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. No claims appear to contain bias. Viewpoints are accurately represented, and the article is is non-persuasive.


 * 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

The references are well done and reputable. Source links work, and the sources are current.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * For the most part the article is well written, and very clear. No grammatical/spelling issues, and well organized.


 * 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


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * N/A for conversations. N/A.


 * 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 is overall very well written and informative. It provides information that the user desires while not allowing for bias to enter the page. The article is strong in it provides enough information to educate someone who knew nothing of the Montreal Canadiens. The article could be improved by authors making sure not to confuse NHL team names with nationalities. The article is very well developed.


 * 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: