User:Hmk0110/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: Hook grip
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: The article was on the list of stub articles and most importantly it is a subject that I have interest in.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does utilize an introductory sentence but some of the functionality of Hook grip was not clearly described in the lead.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes there is a brief description.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes there is information present in the lead that is not further described in the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is neither, I think the lead needs to be more concise.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?Most of the content is relevant except of the Grip strengthening portion of the article.
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, but details are missing.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the method of the hook grip can be more detailed and the Grip strengthening part can be eliminated.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Is the article neutral? Yes it is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?Perhaps the disadvantage is slightly overrepresented.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Not particularly pushing a position.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, many parts of the article are missing sources in general.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Need more sources to properly reflect the topic.
Are the sources current? No some of the sources was unavailable (especially #2)
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Mostly weightlifting coaches
Check a few links. Do they work? Source link 2 did not work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article needs to be more concise and clear.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, some minor spelling and grammatical errors were present.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it was well organized

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?Images are present.
Are images well-captioned? The images are not labeled well and can bring confessions to the readers.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, the images shows the steps of using Hook grip but needs to improve the location to avoid confusions.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversations are around confusing segments of the article and clarity.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is in WIkiProject Sports, stub-class, and low importances.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N

What is the article's overall status? The article is incomplete and needs to be improved by adding more detail alongside using own words when using the source material.
What are the article's strengths? The organization of the article is easy to see.
How can the article be improved? Adding more detailed information and clarity of wordings.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped

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 — ~~~~