User:2003la/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it correlates with what we are learning in class (volcanos, different types of rocks, lava). I mainly chose this article to learn more about volcano's, specifically the Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park. I feel like the article will talk about this specific volcano and its location, magnitude, history, recent events and more.

Evaluate the article
The article I choose to evaluate is about the Hawai'i Volcano National Park. The first sentence of the article clearly states what the topic is about which already gives the reader a good amount of information. The following sentences are a quick overview of the National Park which then is explained more throughout the article. The lead section does mention the article’s major sections. The lead section is roughly 3 paragraphs, which I think is a good amount for an introduction and overview. The rest of the article talks all about the National Park and the park's purpose, environment, and history. The last time the page was edited was on August 3, 2021, so the content should be up-to-date. The article is neutral, stating only facts and data. The article was unbiased and showed no prejudice with any topic. Throughout the article, there are many references leading to reliable sources and proof of information. The majority of the sources used in this article seem to be within the recent years (2000-2017). When going through the links, I did not come across any of them not working. I personally believe that the article is clear and easy to read, I understood all that was said and would be able to write a summary of the article. There were over 10 images throughout the article, with data and pictures of the volcanos. The images have a short and simple, easy-to-understand caption (around one sentence per image). Overall I feel like the article was very well put together and well developed, but could have given a little more information, it seemed short, but even still a lot of correct and reliable information was given.