User:Dallas Pallone/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link)Cache River National Wildlife Refuge
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge for my article due to my interest in the outdoors and being a sportsman.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The lead does a pretty good job of explaining what the article is about and what the location has to offer, without over or under explaining it.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does an okay job of summarizing the article.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Its pretty concise, but does explain enough to get a feel for the article.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, the article content is relevant to the topic.
Is the content up-to-date? Not really, most of the information is from 2012 to 2013
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? . This article seems to have pretty accurate information but it could definitely use some more information added to it. Especially in regards to the parks recreational activities and what it has to offer to the general public.

Is the article neutral? This article does a great job of being neutral while it is hard to be biased to a wildlife refuge.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this article seems pretty clear of bias'.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The publics review of the park is not added at all, which having some personal reviews might help the article.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this is a very neutral article.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? . All of the sources seem to be pretty reliable, because they are mostly government resources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, pretty well.
Are the sources current? No, they seem to be from almost a decade ago.
Check a few links. Do they work? A few of the links no longer work, or lead to a “page not found” notifications.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, very much so.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, it does not appear like it.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is broken down into the major sections.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? While the images are helpful it certainly seems like they could have added a few more images of the park to greater show that it's not just water and hardwood trees.
Are images well-captioned? One of the images is labeled very well.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they do.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Does not seem like there's any conversations going on in the background.
How is the article rated? C-Class Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No, it is not a part of a WikiProject.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

What is the article's overall status? High Importance
What are the article's strengths? The talk about the elusive Ivory-Billed Woodpecker and planned expansions.
How can the article be improved? It needs newer information and more about why the people of Arkansas should visit this place.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Its seems pretty well developed, except for the recreation.

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 — ~~~~