User:CCNorthfield/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A 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.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
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?

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?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

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?
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?
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?

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?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

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?
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?

Overall impressions

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?

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.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Boston Celtics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I selected this article because the Boston Celtics are my favorite professional basketball team. This article is important because millions of fans support the Celtics, and they are one of the world's most valuable sports franchises.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section

The lead section of the Boston Celtics Wikipedia provides a good overview of the franchise and its history. Within the first sentence, readers are able to understand who the Celtics are and what the article will be about. While the lead doesn't touch on all of the subsections of the article, it does include allusions to the various eras of coaches and players, as well as the Celtics' rivalry with the Los Angeles Lakers. Perhaps this section could be abridged to contain only the essential details and content related to the history of the franchise could be moved to the appropriate place.

Content

The content of the Wikipedia is all directly related to the Boston Celtics. While the information covered is quite extensive, there are a handful of areas that I believe could be expanded upon. The section on the Celtics- Lakers rivalry is notably short, but I assume the brevity is due to there existing a hyperlinked Wikipedia specific to this rivalry. Additionally, there is no mention of more recent rivalries, like the Miami Heat or Milwaukee Bucks; a section devoted to recent or developing rivalries would improve the page. Finally, although there are specific pages for the Boston Garden and TD Garden, a short blurb discussing the venues should likely be added.

The article does address some equity gaps, particularly the role of race in the NBA. However, the Wikipedia would benefit from a section delineating Bill Russell's positive impact off the court; his actions helped progress the civil rights of African Americans in the US.

Tone & Balance

For the most part, the article is objective and remains neutral on the topics discussed. In a few cases, however, there are statements made without substantial evidence to back them. For instance, the author says " Considered the best passing center in NBA history, he stayed healthy and was a big part of the Celtics' success in 1986" in reference to Bill Walton. This a vague and subjective statement, and should be changed to be clear and factual.

Sources & References

Most of the sources seem very reliable as they are statistical references or official NBA websites. At 251 different articles references, the Wikipedia certainly draws on a wide range of sources. While there can always be more sources cited, I am impressed with the quality and quantity of sources on the page.

Organization & Writing Quality

The organization of the Celtics Wikipedia page is clear and logical. Beyond the organization, the writing style is concise and contains no noticeable errors.

Images & Media

Images and charts are embedded throughout the Wikipedia page; they are effective in displaying information and adding to the quality of the article. The captions are clear and help connect media to the topic of the Boston Celtics. Furthermore, they all seem to uphold Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion

There are various conversations occurring in the talk page. The longest discussion pertains to the origin of the name "Celtics." There are additional talk page posts regarding everything from article length to Kevin Garnett's photo. The article has received a "C" rating, and is part of the NBA and US Wikiprojects.

Overall Impressions

As a whole, I was impressed by the Boston Celtics Wikipedia page. There are certainly changes to be made, but the breadth of sources and attention to detail makes it a solid starting point. In the future, editors may want to consider abbreviating certain sections and expanding upon parts like the arena and the impact of Bill Russell.