User:Spcml12/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Hailey Van Lith

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article because I have been following Hailey Van Lith and her basketball career on social media. This article matters because it provides valuable information about one of the top women's college basketball players in the nation. My preliminary impression of the article was that it seemed limited in information and slightly outdated, but regarding the first observation, there probably are not many sources available.

Evaluate the 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?
  • Yes, the lead describes the key facts about Hailey Van Lith, including that she is a college basketball player, the team that she plays for, and the conference that the team plays in.
• Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, the lead does not describe the article's major sections.
• Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
  • No, it does not.
• Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The lead is very concise and not 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?
  • Yes, the content is relevant to basketball, which is the main topic.
• Is the content up-to-date?
  • The content is slightly outdated, particularly about her college basketball career and national team career.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • I do not see any content that does not belong, but there is content missing as mentioned above about her more recent achievements in the sport.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
  • Yes, the article addresses women in sports, who tend to garner less mainstream media attention compared to their male counterparts. I noticed that from the Louisville women's team roster, Van Lith was the only one with a Wikipedia article, which shows how little coverage these athletes get.

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?
  • Yes, the article is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, there are no biased claims.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.
• Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
  • Not really, but the facts that the article does include would be hard to be described as such.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, it is a fairly objective account of her basketball career.

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?
  • Yes, the facts seem to be backed by reliable sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • I would assume so, as I doubt there is much more available literature besides more current news articles.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are describing facts from the past, so they are fine.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Likely no, as many of the articles are news or sports media publications, which are fields that are not as diverse as they could be.
• 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.)
  • The better sources available would be more current news articles, as this is the only place where the bulk of the information can be sourced.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, they do.

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?
  • Yes, the article is well-written.
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • There are a few commas missing, but otherwise not many errors.
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the article is clearly organized.

Images and Media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • The article has the standard biographical image, but other than that, there is a lack of images.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Yes, it is well-captioned.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Yes, it does.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Yes, it is.

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?
  • There are no conversations on the talk page currently.
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
  • The article is rated C-class. It is part of the Women's sport / basketball WikiProject

Overall impressions

• What is the article's overall status?
  • The article does well to provide some of the most basic facts, but is fairly outdated and limited in terms of how much information is actually spelled out.
• What are the article's strengths?
  • The strengths are its information accuracy and its conciseness.
• How can the article be improved?
  • The article can be updated with more up-to-date information and can be expanded more.
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
  • The article, overall, is underdeveloped and could use more work on improving the information quality and quantity.