User:Cebeck/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Hot Springs, North Carolina

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'm conducting undergraduate research on the geochemistry of Hot Springs, NC. This location is a geologically, and chemically, fascinating region, yet the article only speaks of demographics and history.

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.) This article is concise, clear, and easy to read. The sources are current. The lead section only speaks of the town's coordinates and geography, but it should include a wider variety of information; this article should have a section about the underlying geology and geochemistry of the region. The article speaks of the "therapeutic benefits" of the hot springs, but not its chemical activity. This article is written from a neutral point of view, because no controversial topics are mentioned in this article. The sources for the topics mentioned are thorough, because they include the U.S. Census and the Asheville Citizen-Times. Several images were included, but the descriptions are arguably too vague. The talk page only mentions external sources and a question about a book. The article doesn't include enough information, but the information included seems to be thorough. My overall impression is that this article is under-developed.