User:Egreenfield01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Boeing 314 Clipper

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the 314 Clipper was an incredible plane, marking huge advancements in the field of aerospace engineering. The Clipper's Wikipedia article has been given a C rating, which makes it ideal for this assignment. The C rating is due to the "Coverage and accuracy" criterion not being met yet.

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 is concise and presents a pretty good overview of the rest of the article. All of the key details to get an idea of what the article is referring to are included. It misses some minor sections that are brought up later in the article, but it does cover most of them, and definitely all the important ones.

Content: All the content is related to the subject of the article. The article provides a thorough and even account of all of the important details of the 314 Clipper. It documents the different important time periods in the 314's life (from development through scrapping) and also covers variants and models, which wasn't mentioned in the lead section. This doesn't really deal with an equity gap issue, but the information is still presented in a non-biased way. The one downside here is it seems to have been last updated in 2014, so it might need a little bit of an update.

Tone and balance: The article is pretty neutral on all points. There aren't really any controversial opinions or information, and it seems to give each piece of information equal weighting as it goes through the history of the plane. There aren't any fringe or extremist viewpoints, and the article doesn't try to convince people of anything.

Sources and references: All facts seem to be backed up by a source or reference. The sources seem to be reliable, with several relevant books and a handful of articles on the subject cited. The sources seem to cover the available literature, as there are sources for each part of the article to back up the facts. The sources are mostly current, with the most recent being from 2019. The only slight issue I see is that there are a few authors that are used repeatedly; this could be because they are experts in the field and have published some of the best resources on it. I couldn't find any better sources though, and the existing links do seem to be working.

Organization and writing quality: The article is well-written, with no discernable grammar or spelling errors. The article is separated into logical sections, mostly having to do with different periods of time in the lifespan of the 314.

Images and media: There are several images that give the reader a sense of what different 314 models looked like. They also show it in different scenarios throughout history which is helpful with flow structure. They are all captioned well and seem to abide by the copyright regulations. Some of the framing is a little small, but they are visually pleasing otherwise.

Talk page discussion: The conversations seem to be mostly focused on small details -- there are no main points in the article that anyone is debating. There are also a lot of reference and link discussions. There does seem to have been some heated discussion at some point, but I can't tell what it was over. The article does reflect the decisions made in the talk section and is part of the Military history and Aviation WikiProjects. The talk section differs mainly in that it is very concerned with having references for each piece of info that is talked about, which is sometimes not present in normal talk.

Overall impressions: The article is a C class overall, with the "Coverage and accuracy" criterion not being met yet. I'm not positive what exactly is missing from this, but it might have to do with people in the talk section saying that fact-checking is needed for one of the articles referenced. I think the article does a really good job of giving a solid overview of the subject and all of the different ways it was used throughout history while still remaining unbiased. One way to improve might be to add additional sources or sections if people find out any more relevant info not already shared. I think it's a pretty well-developed article, but a couple sections might be better with a little bit more added.