 | 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. |
Bishop Sycamore High School scandal
It's a rather recent exposé, and I have enough knowledge on the subject to be able to evaluate what it is missing in the article, rather than covering something entirely too broad to be properly broken down.
Content
The content is up to date and recent; the authors of the article retrieved additional sourcing almost everyday since the genesis of the article on the 31st of August. I wouldn't say anything is particularly missing, but there's a couple of things that could be added that would help give more context. Everything relevant to the situation appears to be covered, including the elements that created the controversy itself. I suppose giving more context on the social media's pickup of the story would be either irrelevant or somewhat biased, but I feel its inclusion would give more context to how it got so much traction. While other affiliations have investigated them before, no one really had any idea about Bishop Sycamore until the ESPN game a week and a half ago, and it took until social media got a hold of it to really kick off the heavy public scrutiny and the resulting memes. I know I didn't know a thing about BS until it hit socials, so emphasis on that may help, so future readers don't think everyone knew about it and didn't care until 2021, because we truly didn't know until now. Everything else in the article checks out though, in my eyes.
Tone and Balance
The balance is very well established, never going into overly eloquent language, and never diverging from the subject at hand. As I mention in the organization section, it is not top heavy nor bottom heavy; the information is clear, concise, and sourced. The article is neutral, simply providing the reader with either the facts that have been publicly agreed upon, or by retelling stories gathered from direct interviews and quotes with those involved with Bishop Sycamore. Nothing indicated bias, and nothing indicated persuasion.
Sources and References
There's 37 references on the page counting today's recent addition, most of them coming from sports news publications, pop culture sites, or the sports section in local newspapers. The page has to only be a week old, since the game that triggered the national controversy was on August 29th, and the earliest retrieved reference came on the 31st. All of the sources appear to be legitimate, as most of them are written with the intent to describe what exactly happened with Bishop Sycamore's program, and the potential lack of its very existence. Some of the articles even have first hand accounts from Bishop Sycamore affiliates and players, detailing what went on with that program. Given the subject, it is unlikely to see anything academically affiliated writing about it, unless someone like the NFHS made a public statement about the issue.
Organization
It's divided into four sections, including the intro, background, the 2021 IMG Academy football game, and Aftermath, the latter including two separate subsections. Besides the intro for obvious reasons, the sections seem to be equally distributed with information, nothing feeling too top heavy or bottom heavy. It is easy to read, and gives references to pretty much every bold statement the article makes, signaling that the information is backed with source.
Images
There's only one image in the article, and it depicts Tom Benson HOF Stadium in Canton, Ohio, where the key note game against IMG was played on August 29. Paired with the image is a box score, giving the reader a look at how lopsided the entire game was, for context purposes. There is also info about the announcers, referee, and the network it was showcased on, which had purpose in the actual article itself, but didn't necessarily need to be in the image box with the photo of the stadium and the box score. The photo itself isn't from 2021 either, it's from 2014, when the stadium had a different name, so that could've been chosen better.
Overall
Well written article that is source heavy and does not incite any bias or rhetoric into it. I feel this article is safe for those who want to know more about the events of Bishop Sycamore, with or without prior knowledge to the subject. I think in its current state, it is well developed, and only has room for improvement once more information comes through about the program, including its impending documentary that is in the works. Information from that documentary will be well suited for this article once it is made available.
Nice work!
A question: You expressed mixed feelings about adding more information about the coverage of the issue in social media: "I suppose giving more context on the social media's pickup of the story would be either irrelevant or somewhat biased, but I feel its inclusion would give more context to how it got so much traction." Why would including coverage of the coverage on social media be biased? Saguaro23 ( talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
| 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. |
Bishop Sycamore High School scandal
It's a rather recent exposé, and I have enough knowledge on the subject to be able to evaluate what it is missing in the article, rather than covering something entirely too broad to be properly broken down.
Content
The content is up to date and recent; the authors of the article retrieved additional sourcing almost everyday since the genesis of the article on the 31st of August. I wouldn't say anything is particularly missing, but there's a couple of things that could be added that would help give more context. Everything relevant to the situation appears to be covered, including the elements that created the controversy itself. I suppose giving more context on the social media's pickup of the story would be either irrelevant or somewhat biased, but I feel its inclusion would give more context to how it got so much traction. While other affiliations have investigated them before, no one really had any idea about Bishop Sycamore until the ESPN game a week and a half ago, and it took until social media got a hold of it to really kick off the heavy public scrutiny and the resulting memes. I know I didn't know a thing about BS until it hit socials, so emphasis on that may help, so future readers don't think everyone knew about it and didn't care until 2021, because we truly didn't know until now. Everything else in the article checks out though, in my eyes.
Tone and Balance
The balance is very well established, never going into overly eloquent language, and never diverging from the subject at hand. As I mention in the organization section, it is not top heavy nor bottom heavy; the information is clear, concise, and sourced. The article is neutral, simply providing the reader with either the facts that have been publicly agreed upon, or by retelling stories gathered from direct interviews and quotes with those involved with Bishop Sycamore. Nothing indicated bias, and nothing indicated persuasion.
Sources and References
There's 37 references on the page counting today's recent addition, most of them coming from sports news publications, pop culture sites, or the sports section in local newspapers. The page has to only be a week old, since the game that triggered the national controversy was on August 29th, and the earliest retrieved reference came on the 31st. All of the sources appear to be legitimate, as most of them are written with the intent to describe what exactly happened with Bishop Sycamore's program, and the potential lack of its very existence. Some of the articles even have first hand accounts from Bishop Sycamore affiliates and players, detailing what went on with that program. Given the subject, it is unlikely to see anything academically affiliated writing about it, unless someone like the NFHS made a public statement about the issue.
Organization
It's divided into four sections, including the intro, background, the 2021 IMG Academy football game, and Aftermath, the latter including two separate subsections. Besides the intro for obvious reasons, the sections seem to be equally distributed with information, nothing feeling too top heavy or bottom heavy. It is easy to read, and gives references to pretty much every bold statement the article makes, signaling that the information is backed with source.
Images
There's only one image in the article, and it depicts Tom Benson HOF Stadium in Canton, Ohio, where the key note game against IMG was played on August 29. Paired with the image is a box score, giving the reader a look at how lopsided the entire game was, for context purposes. There is also info about the announcers, referee, and the network it was showcased on, which had purpose in the actual article itself, but didn't necessarily need to be in the image box with the photo of the stadium and the box score. The photo itself isn't from 2021 either, it's from 2014, when the stadium had a different name, so that could've been chosen better.
Overall
Well written article that is source heavy and does not incite any bias or rhetoric into it. I feel this article is safe for those who want to know more about the events of Bishop Sycamore, with or without prior knowledge to the subject. I think in its current state, it is well developed, and only has room for improvement once more information comes through about the program, including its impending documentary that is in the works. Information from that documentary will be well suited for this article once it is made available.
Nice work!
A question: You expressed mixed feelings about adding more information about the coverage of the issue in social media: "I suppose giving more context on the social media's pickup of the story would be either irrelevant or somewhat biased, but I feel its inclusion would give more context to how it got so much traction." Why would including coverage of the coverage on social media be biased? Saguaro23 ( talk) 22:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)