User:Sjb333/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Vicky Sunohara

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
For class I had to choose a C-class article that was related in someway to women. We are doing this in order to examine the gaps often found in Wikipedia's articles about historically marginalized groups. I specifically chose this article about Vicky Sunohara because I am an avid hockey fan and I was curious about the reporting of women's hockey, as it often lacks the publicity it deserves.

Lead section

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the intro sentence does a good job of laying out who Vicky is.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not mention how the article will be layed out.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * No, it is all relevant.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead has a good balance between concision and information.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant and well organized.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, info as recently as 2022 is mentioned.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, nothing that I can really think of. Maybe would cut down on some of the quotes as they are a bit lengthy at times.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes. It is about female hockey player and historically, women in sports have not gotten the publicity and respect they deserve.

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?
 * Yes, it seems to be a relatively neutral overview on her life.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I do assume that the article was written by a fan of Vicky's, so it could be a little biased in that regard.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nothing that stands out in particular.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * It does a good job of highlighting how revolutionary and inspiring Vicky has been throughout her career.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it is much more of an informative article—a biography specifically.

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?
 * Yes, all of the paragraphs with info has been properly cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they range from news publications to university papers to reputable hockey news sources (i.e. TSN, Hockey Hall of Fame, etc.)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some of them are, but some of the articles about her playing days and early life are from the early 2000s (which makes sense as that is when these events occurred).
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not really, they all seem to be articles praising Vicky for her playing career or her coaching ability or her work for bettering women in sports, so there doesn't seem to be any opposing views.
 * 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.)
 * I did not find any better sources regarding Vicky, which might be due to the historically little amount of press and publicity that women's hockey (honestly female sports in general have received).
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the ones I tried worked.

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?

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, they are all relevant, but it could use a few more.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they do give a brief overview of whats happening, but they could be a little more detailed.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * From what I can tell, they are coming from a free-use website, but it was a little difficult to find their original sources.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Again, I would appreciate a few more photos, but the ones included don't seem out of place.

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?
 * There is not much going on in the talk page and it is all from one user and an automated chat bot.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-class and is a part of a number of WikiProjects (Sports and games, Ontario, Olympics, Women's Sports, Ice Hockey).
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not really covered the coverage of women's sports in class, so I think much of what it talks about regarding gender is new. However, a lot of the same trends are brought up, like how they have been historically silenced/left out of mainstream media.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article honestly seems much better than I was expecting it to given its low rating.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Gives a really good overview and background into who Vicky is and what she has accomplished throughout her long career.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think the article could really benefit from more foot-traffic. If there were more people involved in the editing and curating of the information on Vicky, I think it would make it less likely to be biased/influenced by one person's viewpoints.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It seems pretty well developed and does a good job of looking at her major accomplishments across her career. It might be nice for it to dive deeper into her playing career, as she was such a prolific player I feel like she deserves a little more press.