User:Mackz5/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: 1080 Snowboarding (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have played the video game before, and know a lot about it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Some major sections are left out of the lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. The game is old, and there haven't been many new developments to cover.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All major content is there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article stays neutral.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Many viewpoints are presented. No single viewpoint is overrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The article stays neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Some sources just lead to other Wikipedia pages.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links I checked work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I believe it is.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I can see.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into multiple sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are very few images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Only two images are present, and they are small.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is very little discussion.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is featured.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No. The article seems similar to what we should see from a featured article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article seems to be in good shape.
 * What are the article's strengths? While the game is not discussed as much, the article contains a lot of links.
 * How can the article be improved? I would like to see more images added.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed in the sense that it provides all the necessary information. However, there are a few things that would be worth adding.

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: