User:Shchang1205/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) Burning (professional wrestling)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * Japanese Wrestling is famous worldwide.

Lead:
Burning (バーニング, Bāningu) was a professional wrestling stable originally formed in All Japan Pro Wrestling (AJPW) in August 1998 by Jun Akiyama, Kenta Kobashi, Kentaro Shiga and Yoshinobu Kanemaru. Akiyama and Kobashi dominated AJPW's tag team ranks for the next two years, winning the World Tag Team Championship twice and the World's Strongest Tag Determination League also twice.

In July 2000, Burning took part in a mass exodus led by Mitsuharu Misawa and left AJPW to join the newly founded Pro Wrestling Noah promotion, where it was rebuilt with Akiyama leaving the alliance and Kobashi taking several rookies under his wing. As representatives of Burning, Kobashi held the GHC Heavyweight Championship for two years and he and Tamon Honda won the GHC Tag Team Championship on two occasions, while the stable also launched the careers of Kenta and Go Shiozaki, both of whom eventually climbed to the top of the promotion. Eventually Kobashi's battle with kidney cancer and other various injuries led to the quiet dissolution of the stable.

Burning was reformed back in AJPW in January 2013, when original members Jun Akiyama and Yoshinobu Kanemaru and second incarnation member Go Shiozaki along with Atsushi Aoki and Kotaro Suzuki quit Pro Wrestling Noah and joined AJPW as a unit. The stable quickly began dominating the promotion, winning three titles and two tournaments within three months of its reformation. Despite the success, Aoki, Shiozaki and Suzuki all quit Burning before the end of 2013 to form their own new group. The stable was effectively dissolved when Kanemaru left AJPW at the end of 2015.


 * 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?
 * No, there is no discrete distinction between when or what happened during the second and third incarnation
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is very concise.

Lead evaluation
Overall the lead is very messy.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No.

Content evaluation
Overall, the content seems pretty good.

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

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is very neutral in this article.

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?
 * Somewhat. Many sentences are about the accolades that the members received.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there are a diverse group of people writing this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some of the links do not work.

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the resources might be weak.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes. But more might be needed.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No the last image has no citation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No

Images and media evaluation
There needs to be more images that are well cited.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They are fact checking the wiki article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated very low. A template article.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * They cite more sources.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page needs to be more live and active for more sources to be in the wiki article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Template
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * For a small wrestling association, the page is very descriptive.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * More sources cited. More information needed. More pictures
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems very shallow and poorly developed.

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:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Burning_(professional_wrestling)&action=edit