User:Ooverholt127/sandbox

Link to Partner's Sandbox
User:Bharrison111/sandbox

= Article Evaluation = I evaluated the article on the Hail Mary pass. Everything is relevant and there is nothing that distracted me. There should have been more information at the beginning that described the Hail Mary pass in the original context and how it has transformed to what it is today. The first paragraph describes just the current context, but then the article proceeds to describe the original Hail Mary pass as much different. Nothing else should be added. The number of examples was reasonable. Surprisingly, for an article about football that includes many teams, the tone is very neutral. No team seems to be over or under represented as an exceptionally good or bad team. The only name that appears considerably more than any other is Aaron Rodgers. I do not know enough about who has the most Hail Mary passes to say if this is an unfair advantage for Rogers. The last link for the "external links" did not work. There were actually two links for the one source and neither of them worked. One took me to a dead end and the other took me to a current sports news page. Earlier in the training it mentioned that news articles are not good sources anyways. I checked multiple other references. Every other one worked. The sources are not necessarily reliable. Like I mentioned earlier, most of the information comes from news articles which Wikipedia does not count as reliable. Not every fact is sourced. Four of the examples are not sourced. Nothing seems biased. Honestly the talk page is mostly about football. Nothing that corrects the article. A few guys say they were at this game or that game. A few suggest that more examples should be added. There is some discussion about the "most important" Hail Mary pass. But the article itself does not mention the "most important pass" so that is just in the talk. The article is rated as C in both the WikiProject American Football and the WikiProject National Football League. As far as in class discussion goes, the article is pretty much what it should be. Not many opinions, and no extra information.