User:Winnie54/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Division_I_Women%27s_Golf_Championships)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(It means a lot to UW Women's Golf Team as it is their first ever national championship win and it has inspired us to work towards the same goal. There is no information/details and a link right now for 2016 onwards so I want to work on 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.)

Lead Section:

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? - yes. Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) - No. Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - Very concise.

Content:

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - yes. I will add similar details like the 2015 championship title information into 2016. Is the content up-to-date? - yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - Missing details links on certain years. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - No. Just college sports particularly in golf.

Tone and Balance:

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. Just facts and figures of championship information and results. 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.

Sources and References: 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? yes. History, Record Books and Stats. Are the sources current? 2012-2019. Missing 2020-2022. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - no. 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.)- only news coverage from different conferences, no scholarly articles found. Check a few links. Do they work? - all works.

Organization and Writing Quality:

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - yes. Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no. Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes.

Images and Media:

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - no. only presented the NCAA logo and geographical map that pinpoint colleges' location. Are images well-captioned? yes. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes.

Talk page discussion:

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - where to get the most recent statistics, how to write an article that has not exist on Wikipedia, and how can one present information that is easy to read? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? ***? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - it is less wordy and requires more in-depth research on sources whereas other topics are more broadly written by scholars.

Overall impressions:

What is the article's overall status? Nothing is written for 2016 yet but overall is easy to read and understand. What are the article's strengths? - detailed stats and information about colleges' results and ranking. How can the article be improved? - adding details for missing details on certain years. How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - it is well-developed and clearly stated the important details about the Women's Golf national championships.