User:Yyamamoto164/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: Sports analytics
 * The class is on sports analytics so I thought it would be fitting to use an article about topics discussed in class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence is concise, but could be worded better to clarify some information. The lead is successful in including a brief description of the entire article and not having it too long. However, the lead includes details such as on-field vs. off-field analytics that are not covered in more detail in the actual article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The contents of the article are mostly relevant to the topic, but the article doesn't go in to depth on how teams and organizations collect and use their data. Most of the information is not up-to-date as the newest source dates back to 2018. The article only focuses on baseball analytics while only mentioning some other sports and how they use analytics. The article should start off by talking about the evolution of sports analytics in baseball and how it reached out to the other sports. The content also only mentions people that have won championships. The article also never talks about the independent organizations that collect and assess data for the teams.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article doesn't seem neutral. There is a widely brought up argument that relying on analytics solely is not effective, but the writer seems to not mention any detail on how people disagree with sports analytics, and simply talks about notable people that have only relied on analytics to make decisions. However, it doesn't try to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another, they just don't mention the argument that is being talked about.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All of the facts are cited and backed up by reliable sources such as the Washington Post. The collection of sources used are not wide enough in variety. They are all mainly sources discussing how analytics in baseball is creating a revolution. There are not too many sources about the other sports and other viewpoints on sports analytics, like how using analytics for sports betting ruining the culture.

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?

Organization evaluation
There is one typo error that I noticed, but other than that it was grammatically correct without spelling errors. The organization of the article needs a lot of work. After the lead, the article talks about sport-specific analytical tools and measurements and then the history. It would make more sense if history was before the other topics.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images that were used for the article.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The only concern mentioned by another writer was how there were errors with the source references and how the wording of some of the sentence could be rephrased. It seems like everyone who has looked at the article was satisfied with how it looked. The article is rated a start-class and is apart of two WikiProjects, sports and statistics.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article needs a lot of work to encapsulate the entirety of sports analytics. The strengths of the article are that there are no significant grammatical errors and the lead is concise and direct. However, the article doesn't discuss any significant information on soccer, football, basketball, etc. analytics and seems to heavily focus on baseball and the successful general managers. The article overall has had a solid foundation, but definitely needs some work on from other perspectives.

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: