User:Capucine427/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Petroleum transport)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I Chose to evaluate this article because it pertains to the subject of the course (petroleum transport) and there's a notification on the top that says it has multiple issues.)

Evaluate the article
(Lead Section: The article has a lead sentence that describes the topic. The lead does include a description of the article's major sections. It doesn't include include information in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article. The lead is very concise and a little short

Content: I think this article is lacking in backing up their claims of a certain method of transportation being more cost-effective than another. It just claims to be a cheaper method with no real numbers backing that up. I do think the content is relevant to the topic

Tone + Balance: The tone of the articles wasn't that neutral as it seemed the author had a view on the best transportation methods with no real evidence to support. Additionally, there was a lack of balanced information to make this a neutral tone.

Sources + References: I think the sources could use an update, none of the sources listed were published in 2019-present. Given the industry I think there may have been innovations.

Organization + Writing Quality: No, not all the facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. There are a couple of sentences that don't make sense in the structure of the paragraph like "However, the amount of oil spilled while it is in transport is a small percentage of the total oil spilled"

Images + Media: I think the articles images are good, but could use more images on the effects it has on wildlife and nature like it claims in the lead section.

Talk Page discussion: There was one or two comments on the talk page. They said that the terminology being used in the article was confusing and they made a few corrections to the grammar so that it would be easier to understand. Also there was a complaint that the information used in the 'pipeline v. rail debate' section wasn't balanced enough.

Overall impressions: I think this article had good intentions on trying to inform readers on the transportation methods of petroleum oil. However, there is alot more information + media that should be included to make the article more informative. I feel like there was so much more details that could've been written about to provide context and support to the claims that were being made. )