User:Siddy.sk2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Freestyle swimming

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I found it very interesting and I relate to swimming since I have been swimming since I was 8 years old. I think I am well educated on this topic so that I can include my thoughts on it and look at it from a different perspective which will help me understand the topic more. I also noticed that the article was missing a few sources and citations which made me curious as to why that happened and how I can help improve it.

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.)

It is a well articulated wikipedia article, it goes over a few aspects on what freestyle actually is, helps understand the audience the key aspects of freestyle swimming. It includes GIF's of the freestyle swimming technique which I think is really is really useful especially since it is an action and that helps understand the article more effectively. It goes over the history as well as the new developments in the sport with supporting record that have been made. There are enough images to keep the audience engaged and that does not distract you from the main point of the article. It does have a few short comings, it lacks a few sources and citations, which I believe is very important is very important fro the relevancy of the article. The grammar is pretty good, the writing style is understandable and the composition is pretty solid. The overall status of the article is not the best, it does need updated information, especially in the "new developments" section. It has good information about freestyle swimming which I think is one of the strength of the article is is very direct with its information and way of writing. The article can definitely be improved by adding verified sources, and new imposition in the new developments section, I would say the article is well developed with room for improvement.