User:Rileylaub/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Jamal Murray

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I like sports and basketball is very interesting. I thought of local players that I know the most about and Jamal came to mind. I also wanted to do something exciting and something I am interested in and a basketball player fits those desires. I doesn't really matter to anything or anyone besides those who appreciate the Nuggets, the NBA or know Jamal so it's not a terribly important article. But if it's interesting to people who like those things then it matters.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)


 * LEAD SECTION:
 * 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? (It shouldn't.) No
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would describe it as more concise; there's some detail but not a terrible amount.
 * CONTENT:
 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, it talks about his entire career of basketball and is relevant to his life.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the last edit was Jan 10, 2023.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No the content is in the right places and no content is missing from what I can tell.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, he's an athlete.
 * TONE AND BALANCE:
 * 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
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? No but there isn't minority viewpoints in the article at all.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the article is completely neutral.
 * SOURCES AND REFERENCES:
 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, there are 71 sources that back up each fact.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they take from many different sports publications that have covered stories on Jamal.
 * Are the sources current? For when Jamal's events and games happened, yes the sources are current to when they occurred.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? After clicking through a few articles I found that a lot of them were white males. I did not click through all of them since there are 71, but I do not believe there is a diverse spectrum of authors. I did not find any historically marginalized individuals either.
 * 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.) No, the sources they get the information on Jamal from are pretty accurate and they are the best ways to get information on him.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Only the first one did not work.
 * ORIGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY:
 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the article is concise, clear and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None I could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yep, it goes through the different parts of his career.
 * IMAGES AND MEDIA:
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It does, it shows what Jamal looks like and includes one from his college days too.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are captions underneath the two images and they're concise and show what year the pictures were taken. So I would conclude that they are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yep they have citations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yep they look fine, they are in places where they should be.
 * TALK PAGE DISCUSSION:
 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is no conversations happening on the talk page from real users, only one from a bot.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C class; part of Biography/sports and games project, college basketball project, basketball project, NBA project, Canada/Ontario/Sport project as well.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We unfortunately have not discussed Jamal Murray in class.
 * OVERALL IMPRESSIONS:
 * What is the article's overall status? C
 * What are the article's strengths? It takes on a neutral position, it has a plethora of sources to back up facts, and goes through a lot of Jamal's life.
 * How can the article be improved? The article completely focuses on his basketball career and does not do anything to mention his personal life, which I think could improve the article on him.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it is well developed, it is mostly complete but it just describes Jamal Murray as a basketball player. It should describe him as more than a basketball player.