User:AlexisRosendahl/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mud Island, Memphis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have not lived in Memphis very long and this is one place I have been to a few times. I like going there because it reminds me of an abandoned amusement park. It is important because it used to be a major tourist attraction in Memphis, but it now appears to be neglected. I also noticed the page was very short and did not provide a whole lot of information.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The first sentence of the lead section does briefly explain that Mud Island is not an island, but a peninsula…and nothing more. The lead section describes the creation (history) of Mud Island more than explaining what it is and what can be found there. The only mention of the main subject is one line that lists the attractions that can be found on Mud Island. The lead section goes into more detail about the history of Mud Island than the actual history section. It also mentions ways to access Mud Island in the lead section and never references them in the actual article. The lead section contains too much detail about the formation of Mud Island, but it should just give a brief overview of what Mud Island is today.

Content

The content is relevant to the topic, it is just very vague and only focuses on specific minor topics instead of the big picture. The article is up to date but focuses more on the history of Mud Island. The only content that is missing is a strong lead section that would say “If you went to Mud Island today, this is what you would see…” I would say this article deals with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, because Mud Island resides in a black city, and the majority of Wikipedia editors are white males, the article has not received as much attention as it should (lacking much detail).

Tone and Balance

The article is very much neutral. It does not discuss anything except Mud Island, which is not a controversial topic. There are no specific “viewpoints” seeing as the article just states facts about Mud Island. The only viewpoint I could see lacking is that of who created it. The article does not mention the people that contributed to the construction of the island or who kept it up and running. I did not detect any form of persuasion in the article, it was pretty much just straight forward facts.

Sources and References

Not all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable source. The sources do include information about Mud Island, but they are very outdated. There are only two sources, one from 2003, and one from 2009. I would not say the sources are written from a diverse spectrum, because there are only two sources. There are many better sources available. A quick Google search reveals much more information than this Wikipedia article provides. There are several travel sites that discuss the activities available there as well as up to date photos. There is even a banner at the top of the page saying that it needs more citations.

Organization and Quality Writing

The article is well written, just not well organized. I did not spot any major grammatical errors. It appears that the creator tried to break it down into sections but did not focus on the current aspects of Mud Island, such as all of the things that can be done there.

Images and Media

The article does include many images that help readers see what Mud Island looks like. The images are all captioned and help readers know what it is they are looking at. It appears that all of the images adhere to Wikipedia’s copyright regulations. The images do not appear in the most appealing way and are very dull, but they give readers an idea of what Mud Island looks like.

Talk Page Discussion

There are only two comments on the talk page and the last one is from 2011 and just suggested a section be added about the structure of the island. The article is a part of WikiProject Tennessee. It has been rated as “start-class” and as “low-importance.”

Overall Impressions

The article is very much underdeveloped and contains unnecessary information. Some of the information is solid but needs to be expanded upon. The article’s main sections should be about Mud Island’s main attractions and the history section needs to be expanded to explain how Mud Island went from a small airport to an amusement park, as well as a section on the people who made it what it is today. There is a lot of potential here, it just needs some work.