User:Seashellll218/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia 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.
Sources and ReferencesA 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.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe 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.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA 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. |
Which article are you evaluating?
Women's National Basketball Association
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I have a lot of interest in women's sports, especially basketball since I used to play it, and I think more needs to be written about it.
Evaluate the article
The article is pretty current, although a lot of the data used in certain sections is only updated as far as 2013, which could be fixed. It uses a multitude of sources but overall the writing is easy to read and clear as to what it's talking about. The sections are well defined and broken up frequently. However, it only briefly mentions any kind of controversy surrounding the pay of players or their access to facilities, equipment, training, etc. It could use an additional section on the sexism in media representation and wages.