User:CLevy001/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Whiteface Mountain

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose whiteface Mountain as my first article to evaluate because It is something I am familiar with and think it would be a great article to start with so I can gain a clear understanding of how these assessments are judged.

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes


 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise and very detailed maybe a little too detailed

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? mostly except for the "climate data chart" which only reports data from 1937-1946
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article from a neutral point of view? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? no opportunity for there to be
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? In my opinion I think so
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) The state of the mountain stays mostly the same overtime so I don't think there are any many other new articles on the subject.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

The article is well written and easy for the average person to understand. The only reason you may have trouble understanding this article is if you don't know any ski lingo at all, such as "Black Diamond" or "Double Black Diamond."


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I found


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I Don't think that the whiteface Castle section should be in the lead portion. If it were to be mentioned in the article at all I think it should be at most a sub paragraph, not a whole paragraph only present in the lead.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes, very much so
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The talk section is small but it mostly has to do with users talking about their experience skiing at whiteface and wanting to know skiing conditions on the mountain.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? I do not know
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Quite developed
 * What are the article's strengths? the Pictures and captions provided are the articles strong point.
 * How can the article be improved? By updating the climate data chart the article would be improved.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is very developed, possibly overly developed and needs editing down. Id say the article is underdeveloped but has a lot of potential.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

I think this article could be better organized and have a bit more information. I think the first thing I would do would be to make the lead shorter and give some of the information in the lead its own sub paragraph. I also think that the climate data chart needs to be updated.