User:KyleMGrace/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: Phoenix Suns
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose to evaluate this article because it's something that interests me and I already have a fair bit of knowledge on it!

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly states what the article is about and is very neutral.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It covers broadly all of the sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Other than some basic information that sets context, it really doesn't. It is mostly just a summary of the highlights in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think the lead is a bit overly detailed with some specific details on time periods and trades that occurred. It seems like it could be shortened overall.

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 content is very relevant overall, with lots and lots of detail and specifics to different "eras" for the team. There is a bit of content on the last few years that seems to be missing, with one player setting many records recently, without much of that making its way into the article. I can't point out any content that is superfluous or unneeded. There seem to be mention of some changes to uniforms and logos which are not supported with images in the article, this seems like it could be a useful addition and there are some people on the talk page saying the same thing.

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 mostly neutral but there are a few instances of words like "mediocrity" which seems to be a bit biased compared to other places in the article. There don't seem to be many viewpoints that are unbalanced either way, other than possibly a bit of recency bias towards how much information is presented, however this is likely due to the availability of data and information. I see no presence of persuasion in the article, it was overall very balanced.

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
All the facts in the article, to my eyes, are backed up by references. All the references I tried work and there are a tonne sitting below the article to back up the myriad of facts referenced.

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 does well to organize the information into well-divided eras. The lead and some areas are a bit too detailed but overall nothing is too egregious. It is an easy read and has no errors that I noticed.

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
There are many well-captioned images in this article, especially of key players and people throughout the history of the organization. However, there is a lack of logo and uniform photos to back up some of the information that speaks of uniform and logo changes over time. Of the images that are there, they are all very well suited to the content of the article and seem to abide by all rules.

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 talk page is very interesting for the article, with many different ideas detailed. There are instances of criticism for the article as well as interest in improving the article by adding more content. The article is part of many WikiProjects and it is rated as a B.

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 very detailed and more-or-less current. The article has lots of information but could do well to make the lead a bit more lean and include more images of things besides people. I would say the article is well-developed, which is to be expected for something that is as big as a sports team.

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: