User:Maddysylva/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: National Park Service
The Wikipedia page about the National Park Service is relevant to the course as it explores the history, accommodations/services, and accessibility information which can be tied into lecture topics such as wildlife management, impact of climate change, and human impacts on the land.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- The lead does include the topic as it describes the National Park Service's mission statement and its position within the government.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, but there are 18 sections covered over a range of aspects regarding the parks. It covers generally what the NPS is but not the purpose of the page.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- Information in the lead is present in the article, such as the Organic Act and creation history.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The lead is concise and short.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- All 18 topics are relevant to the National Parks Service.
Is the content up-to-date?
- The content has been edited in February 2020 but the talk page has not been updated since 2013. The budget column however is a bit vague and does not include numbers, only descriptions.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Because the National Park Service is a broad topic, facets such as role of park rangers and budgeting and climate action all belong. There is no history about indigenous cultures' relation to the National Parks Service, which may be included in individual park pages but should also be included in this page.

Is the article neutral?
- The article is neutral, and includes many sources and contributors so any biased information has likely been edited out.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- There are no claims that appear heavily biased.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- Information about budgeting is extensive but not overrepresented. Viewpoints written from rangers or employees of the service may be biased rather than informational, but does not appear so.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- The article is informational rather than persuasive.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Not all facts have a cited reference either as a link to another page or a secondary source. The entire National Parks Service section does not have any cited sources, and Wikipedia mentions this.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- The 119 sources that are cited contain a variety of literature.
Are the sources current?
- Most of the sources are from after 2000, one from 1991.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- The links work.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- The article is lengthy but generally well written. The budgeting section is a bit vague.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No visible errors were present in the article.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- The article is well organized and broken down into sections that make sense.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Not every section has an image but it would be useful for the youth programs or accessibility sections to have images.
Are images well-captioned?
- The image under International Affairs does not have a caption at all but most images do have a short description below it.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- The images adhere to the copyright regulations.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- The images are usually on the same side of the page but that is not necessarily visually unappealing.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- The most recent suggests including a section about park income, and another argues that a piece of the controversy section be moved to a more relevant page of that specific national park.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- It is part of US government, forestry, protected areas, historic places, and law enforcement.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- Wikipedia offers more depth in certain topics only mentioned in class, but the focus of the class is shifted more towards ethics which may become biased or controversial.

What are the article's strengths?
- There are a range of topics included in the article, offering information about aspects of the park one could be curious about, such as its youth programs or history of program directors. It is unbiased genreally.
How can the article be improved?
- Inclusion of indigenous viewpoints and more information about climate action taken by parks would improve the article. More cited sources in the National Park Service section would greatly improve the credibility of the statements and article.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is well developed with several contributors and edits discussed in the talk page.

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 — ~~~~