User:Lucas Nicholson/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.


 * Fencing
 * I have participated in recreational fencing since 2012, making it a topic I am familiar with, while also being relevant enough for me to find sources for online easily.

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 does an excellent job at directly indicating the article's topic in the first sentence.

The lead seems to inform what subjects will be present later in the article, however there are a few topics that do not get covered in the lead, such as the category of Fencing Techniques towards the bottom. In addition, instead of simply informing what the categories of the article will be about, the lead appears to be describing certain facts about fencing which, in actuality, should be located later in the article under their respective categories. Namely, the lead gets ahead of itself to describe fencing's involvement in the Olympics, as well as Fencing's historical development from classical fencing, to the Italian system, to the French system. Instead, the lead is supposed to briefly describing what the major sections of the article are to be. Some of the information given in the lead is also not cited, even though similar information is cited in the History category of the article. This makes it very difficult for the reader to find the source and know the accuracy of this information without having to find it again later in the article.

Most bothersome about the lead is that the same information is redundantly being displayed 2-3 times in one paragraph. In the second sentence, the three types of fencing are described, which is good at first, but a few sentences later the lead starts to introduce what the three types of fencing are yet again, as if the reader didn't just read it already.

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
All content in the article is relevant to the topic. There are links to other articles about more specific aspects of fencing that refer to most of the content that must be kept up to date, such as tournament rules and regulations. Most other information in the article is either about history, equipment, or techniques which mostly go unchanged over time, save for perhaps new additions being appended later.

All content present in the article is relevant to the topic of fencing. Most content that I feel is missing from the article is present in the supplementary articles linked in the first category of the article, titled Competitive Fencing. Some of this content, however, I believe is still important for this article instead of simply being directed elsewhere. For example, much of the information in Fencing rules is relevant for much more than just Competitive Fencing, the category this link is under. Fencing rule apply just as well in non-competitive fencing, and the reader should not be led to believe the rules of fencing are not applicable to non-competitive fencing.

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 over-represented, 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 succeeds at describing fencing from a non-biased view point. The article does not convey any praise nor displeasure of the topic. No part of the article tries to claim that fencing is "the best" or "the worst" sport, and it does not try to persuade the reader to a particular viewpoint. This article is purely informative.

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
Much of the article has information that is not cited. Mainly, the majority of information in the Weapons, Equipment, and Technique sections of the article does not include citations. In addition, the lead contains information that is only cited later in the article. Citations that do exist are relevant and accurate, reflecting the information presented in the article well. Links in the article are functioning properly.

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 was easy to read and understandable. I could not identify any major grammatical or spelling errors. The article is organized into several categories and subcategories, making it easy to find information being searched for.

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
The article contains many images, mainly in the Equipment section of the article, which are all captioned and relevant. All images obey Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Images are positioned to the sides of the articles where they make it easy to read, and several images that are relevant to one another are clustered together in an order that makes sense.

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 very little discussion in the talk page. It seems a few external link modifications were made by a bot, and there have only been 3 incidents of a Wikipedian requesting a change made to the article, 2 of which have been denied. There is no other discussion about this article in the Talk page. The article is Semi-Protected, which is the most probably reason why the article does not have much attention. The article is neither ranked "Featured" nor "Good". Three WikiProjects are interested in this 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
I believe this article is adequate but can use some improvements. It portrays all the information I could think to require about the subject, but it lacks some citation, and has a few instances of redundancy early on. The article is, however, 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: Talk:Fencing