User:Parkerorr2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Todd Frazier

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Todd Frazier formerly played for the Cincinnati Reds and was my favorite player to watch growing up.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Yes the article has an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. It somewhat describes major sections of the article including his college and amateur careers. No, all of the information in the lead is relevant within the article.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * 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?

Yes the content is relevant to the topic detailing all stages of his baseball career. Yes, the content is up to date. All of the content belongs. No and No.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article is from a neutral point of view with no emotion. None of the claims are biased toward any of the teams. Some of the teams he played for are less represented but that is because he was there for a shorter amount of time than some of the other teams meaning less information. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in anyway.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, all the facts are backed up by sources. Yes the sources are thorough. Yes the sources are current. Yes, the sources come from a wide variety of authors. Some sources are better in some situations but there a ton of quality sources included. Some sources work, some do not.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes the article is easy to read. No grammatical or spelling errors were noticed. Yes the article was well organized, although personal life could have been added to the beginning and not the end.

Images and Media

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

Yes the pictures were of Todd Frazier. Yes, the images captions were thorough. Images adhere to the copyright regulations of Wikipedia. Yes, the visuals are appealing to the eye.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Helpful additions and spelling changes mostly with suggestions on how to make the article more appealing. It was under C-Class Articles, no part in WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The articles overall status is active and still being monitored as Todd Frazier is still technically active in the MLB although unsigned. The articles strengths include the in depth analysis of his stops at each team and what he accomplished while there. The article can be improved by moving personal life to the top of the list and more discussion of his child and his growing up with baseball. The article is well developed.