User:MattDuchow/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: (link) Talk:Forward pass
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I enjoy learning about football

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? Yes
 * 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

Lead evaluation
Lead was good and gave a simple concise answer to the articles main question.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All seems relevant

Content evaluation
Content is accurate and relevant to the topic. No unnecessary content or miss leading information.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Tone and balance evaluation
Tone and balance is neutral and not biased towards any point of view.

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? yes
 * Are the sources current? no
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
references are reliable and give good incite on the topic.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Organization evaluation
Information is well sorted based on topic and critical points.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? they are small and off to side of page

Images and media evaluation
images depict the topic in the proper way

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? they are talking about other people who contributed to the forward pass and other football related topics
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is high rated and is not part of any wikiprojects
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Have not talked about this in class

Talk page evaluation
Not much is going on in talk page but most things are topic related or football related.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The article is complete but can still be added or edited to
 * What are the article's strengths? detailed background information
 * How can the article be improved? more description on why this is important
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? well-developed

Overall evaluation
Article is well structured and gives good information and detail information on the topic of the invention of the forward pass

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: