User:Catsdwa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2021 Arizona wildfires

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 wanted to pick an article related to Arizona and also the environment. The wildfires were interesting because the articles claims that poor land management caused them. Ultimately, nothing was said on how the management system may have changed from these fires.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section: The lead section feels strong in terms of describing the rest of the article, but I feel like it is missing a citation at the end of the 1st paragraph.

Content: The content feels fine if not over-explanatory on the actual data. Now that it is 2022 and the fires have passed, I wonder if we could include some section of how or how not we are trying to fix the "poor land management" that caused these fires.

Tone and Balance: The article is certainly neutral and uses a lot of different sources for information.

Sources and References: All of the facts are backed up by secondary sources; however, I feel like the sourcing could be placed differently in order to clearly demonstrate that earlier. The few links I tried all worked perfectly fine.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing is bland and straightforward. There are a few grammar things that I would change, but they are not "wrong" so-to-speak. The article is structured fine but I would like the "list of wildfires" to be the last section rather than the second to last section as it is hard to parse.

Images and Media: The images look great and are well captioned. They are eye-catching yet work with the article at hand.

Talk Page: The talk page is empty (assuming I can navigate it correctly). It is C-rated.

Overall: The article likely deserves its C-ranking due to it being acceptable, yet not appealing or overachieving at anything in particular. I'm not sure what to add besides maybe a renovation on the sentences to feel less robotic and formulaic and also a new topic of how things may or may not have changed for future fires in Arizona.