User:TylerOliver7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Stadium Bowl

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it talks about the home sports venue of my high school. It matters because it is a historical site in the city of Tacoma, WA and has been host to important speeches, a film location for movies, as well as a staple of high school sports in the city. My first impression is that it covers some basics but I know a lot more information than is listed that I could potentially add.

Lead section

 * The lead has an introduction sentence that clearly outlines the subject of the page and provides a background of the place written about.
 * The lead does not have a description or overview of the different sections in the article.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) yes
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? it is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes the content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date? There are key events that have occurred that have not been written about.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is missing content that include different historical events at the stadium.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? no it does not do this.

Tone and Balance

 * This article has a neutral tone
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? there are none.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no there aren't.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? N/A
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no it does not attempt to persuade.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are some that appear to be missing a source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are pieces of literature that are not used.
 * Are the sources current? Some of them are, but there are more modern sources that have not been used.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there is a diverse array of authors and some marginalized individuals
 * 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.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? they do work

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? for the most part the article is simply well written
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I cannot see any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There needs to be a better use of sections in this article.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does have some images but can benefit from the inclusion of more.
 * Are images well-captioned? The images are well captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes they do
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes they are appealing

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? N?A
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? no it is not apart of any wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? The article is considered a stub article.
 * What are the article's strengths? It does provide factual information about the venue, its location, and primary uses
 * How can the article be improved? There can be more background and listings of historical events that have taken place.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is not well developed and is missing key elements such as more detail.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.