User:Ajmaclaurin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mount Rainier

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I spent 4 years in Washington State and loved seeing Mount Rainier in the distance. Although i lived there and visited Mount Rainier a few times, I really don't know much about it.

Evaluate the article
The article is very clear on its purpose and stays on topic. At the top of the page there is a statement about "other uses" which link to a page with other links to something the reader might be looking for. For example, under this page, there is a section for Mount Rainier National Park which is more specific to the national park and has more information that the Mount Rainier article page doesn't have.

The article has very relevant headings and plenty of content in each section. There are a few out of date links to pages that no longer exist and so the links should be removed. I do not notice any equity gaps or underrepresented or misrepresentation information. Under the Geology section, there is a hazard map that should be under the Modern activity and threat sub category of Geology. The actual structure of the page is very easy to follow and flows nicely from geographical settings and geology to more general topics about the mountain.

I found the article to be from a neutral point of view which is good. I was specifically impressed with the Climbing portion of the article because there wasn't any mention of personal experiences. Its all from the neutral point of displaying information for those who might intend to climb the mountain.

Visiting citation 37, I noticed that the link does not work. Copying the cited content, i was able to find it on google. After doing some looking through the article, i could not find the numbers 500,000, in reference to the statement "The present cone is more than 500,000 years old". Therefore I believe that this statement should be removed from the article due to lack of information. Overall, the article uses many reliable sources such as USGS and National Park Services.

In the talk page, I found that the people talking are very much on topic with the page. There is a section about changing the lead photo and why the one user thought his photo would be best to represent the mountain. Multiple responses resulted in him changing the photo based upon other suggestions. The article is rated as a GA-Class (good article). It is part of 3 other wikiprojects that are also GA-Class rated and of Top or High importance. Although this topic is directly related to the course, it presents itself in a different matter to any course I've taken in university. The article has such range to, it in reference to the topics surrounding it. It has a section about Geology, Human History, and even a climbing section. This gives the reader a more well rounded look at Mount Rainier.