User:Mszyk9/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:Play calling system
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. We have been discussing something similar in class and wanted to see more of an in depth explanation someone might have on play calling in 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? concise

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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

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? 2013-2015
 * 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? yes they do

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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
 * Are images well-captioned? no images presented
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? no images presented
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no images presented

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I was the first to comment back after the original author
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It 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? This focuses on just the different types of offenses and we discussed both sides of the field during class and activities.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The status of this article is strong and well organized to easily follow along and get a good understanding of different types of offenses and what each offense will be calling more often then not.
 * What are the article's strengths? Well-organized
 * How can the article be improved? Images of different style offenses could paint a better picture in visual learners heads, so they can get a better understanding of whats going on.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that this article is well-developed and as time goes on and different tactics are being used on the field this page could use some edits to stay updated.

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: