User:Mariodg20/Tennis

1. Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it starts with a clear introduction on how this sport works so, it’s a good information to start the topic.

2. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Nothing is missing, it has a lot of good and related content, all is about tennis and not from something else like introducing a player and talk about him/her.

3.Is the article neutral? This article is neutral because it gives a lot of points of view, it doesn’t describe what is tennis, it explains or persuades the whole story of this sport.

4.Are the sources current? No, tennis is not a new sport so, this article is not current, is also a topic that I know very well because I practice this sport so, I’m well informed about this.

5.Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, is well-written, clear and untestable, and everything it says it’s true.

6.Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, it talks about the tennis from few years ago and it has pictures of that time, also pictures of current tennis. When I say current, and past is because almost 25 years ago they use to play with rackets made of wood and now with rackets of another type of material.

7.How does the way Wikipedia discuss this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Is not that different from classes, it’s basically the same, it has many updates with the time, of course it has a lot of material but it’s useful.

8.What is the article's overall status? Overall is such a good article to read about, it contains everything you need to know about this sport like how you play, how do you count the points, what do you need to play these sports, the requisites, etc.