User:SeanFraile99/Evaluate an Article

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

2016–17 UEFA Women's Champions League

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 chose this article because I am interested in soccer. This article matters because it highlights one of the biggest competitions in soccer. My preliminary impression of it was that I was surprised to see that the women's champions league does not contain the same amount of teams as the men's champions league.

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


 * 1) Yes
 * 2) The lead does not include a brief description of its major sections. It just provides an overview of the title.
 * 3) No
 * 4) The lead is concise.

Content


 * 1) Yes it provides an overview of the teams included in the champions league and how they qualified.
 * 2) The content contains information from 2016-2017
 * No
 * 1) No it does not go into detail on historically underrepresented populations or topics. It focuses on the format of the women's champions league.

Tone and Balance


 * 1) Yes it is neutral.
 * 2) No. Just provides facts. Does not give opinion.
 * 3) The article provides some more information on certain nations but it does not give an opinion of those nations. For example, it only mentions that Scotland for the first time received two entries in the champions league.
 * No
 * 1) No it does not. Presented in a neutral point of view.

Sources and References

Organisation and Writing Quality
 * 1) Not all facts are backed by a reliable secondary source. For example, they mention that the amount of money received from away games increased from 12,000 euros to somewhere between 17,000-20,000 euros but it does not provided a source.
 * 2) Yes. Most sources reference UEFA.
 * 3) The sources date back to 2016-2017.
 * 4) Yes they refer to authors from different countries.
 * 5) For this article specifically most sources refer to UEFA which is the organisation responsible for creating the rules for the champions league. It tends to be the most trustworthy reference.
 * Yes


 * 1) The article is easy to read.
 * 2) It contains some grammatical errors
 * 3) Yes. It provides an overview of what the champions league is, then the rules of it, and then who won the 2016-2017 women's champions league.

Images and Media


 * 1) Not so many images but a lot of tables to help understand the topic.
 * 2) Yes
 * 3) Yes and it covers the subject matter of the image.
 * 4) There are not many images.

Talk Page Discussion


 * 1) There were only 3 comments from the same person discussing the round of 32 vs qualifying rounds. That person managed to figure out what he was looking for. The article did not make a mistake.
 * 2) It is part of the WikiProject women, WikiProject Women's sport, WikiProject Norway, and WikiProject Football/English/French/German/Scottish/Spanish/Swedish/Season article/Women's football.
 * 3) Wikipedia rates the article but also refers to a lot of the WikiProject's as having low-importance. Not a lot of other information provided on the talk page.

Overall Impressions


 * 1) It is rated as C-class.
 * 2) Neutral point of view, provides a lot of tables, and facts.
 * 3) Grammatical errors can be fixed and sentences can be rephrased to make it easier to understand.
 * 4) I find the article to be well-developed overall. I am surprised that it has a c-class rating. However, it seems to be that not many people have viewed the article which makes it harder to spot certain mistakes.