User:Ky123j/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: Combinatorial game theory
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have chosen to evaluate this article because it pertains directly to what I am interested in studying and because it has a lot of content with a lot of updates in its history, created in 2014, and many people who have discussed updates in the talk page.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead gives an introductory sentence that well-describes the scope of combinatorial game theory in a precise way. The Lead even gives insight to some terms and examples before diving into more specific content later in the article. All of the topics mentioned in the Lead are covered in more detail later in the article, as well as some more subtopics not specifically presented in the Lead. It is kind of lengthy, but considering that this topic encompasses a lot of content, I would say it is an appropriate length. After reading the Lead and the article, I would argue that the Lead would not be complete if any of the details had been left out.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is absolutely relevant to the topic and up-to-date. In fact, the most recent update was December 20, 2019. I believe all of the information provided does belong in the article, but I do think it has one thing missing. Towards the end of the article the authors/editors go into a little about impartial games, but then describe some other games "not impartial", but do not mention that there is a name for this, and that is "partisan". Partisan games are the games which impartial games are not. I feel like this could have been easily mentioned and referenced, but instead chose to simplify and leave it out.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is written from a neutral perspective by all contributors. None of the claims seem heavily biased, but rather all purely informational. None of the viewpoints seem overrepresented or underrepresented. Anything I would have liked to see more discussion about was linked to its own page already, where I could find more specific information, but for topics related to the theory of combinatorial games, the necessary information was all present well and proportionally appropriate. There are no attempts or persuasion in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
I believe the fact are all backed up by reliable sources. The sources all appear scholarly and directly representative of information related to this article's topic. The sources are indeed thorough in covering this topic, and there are enough of them to know the the information provided from the sources must be accurate. The sources definitely are current ranging from late 1900's and early 2000's works. I checked three links that did indeed work bringing me to the books which were cited.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, concise and easy to read. I could not find any grammar or spelling errors, so the contributors have surely done a good job making this article perfect since its creation. I believe the article is very well broken down into its categories, there are none missing and the ones presented are very important and at the forefront of the study of combinatorial game theory.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
This article includes one image which does not very well reflect the breadth of this topic. It is a picture of two mathematicians playing Konane, a combinatorial game, so it is well-captioned. I think there are plenty of pictures that would have been better for this article, such as the board of chess or a visual representation of Nim. The image does agree with wikipedia copyright regulations. The image is not very visually appealing or presented well, it is actually sort of out of the way and I had to take a second look to check if there was even an image included because I did not see it the first time.

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
The conversations happening regard layout suggestions, such as presentations of mathematical ideas along with subjects, as well as sections that should be included. The contributors also express some disagreement on the article's completeness (in the past) and what should further be added. Mostly, the talk page is suggestions of updates to the layout and organization. This article is within the scope of WikiProjects Mathematics, and is rated B class with Mid-level Importance. In class, we refer to a lot of structural and organizational updates to writing. Wikipedia contributors speak very similarly about this article, many suggesting updates to the organization or sections that could be added to improve the article.

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
This article's overall status is very well done with small talks about other sections that could be added. So updates could still continue to be made to add to the effectiveness of the article, but it is very well written as it is now. The article is strong in describing the overview of what combinatorial games are and games in general, then applying this to examples and providing necessary terminology and notation. This article could be improved by sourcing, writing, and adding some provided ideas of sections in the talk page, such as zero-sum games for example. This article is definitely well-developed and I would say near complete if not complete.

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: