User:Elena Marini/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Suez Canal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because the Suez Canal was historically a strategic and influential geographical location, not only for trade but also as a symbolical and powerful emblem. My preliminary impression of the article is that it includes detailed information on almost all key aspects of the Suez Canal and has updated events in it. However, I believe that there is room for improvement in certain parts of the article that can be expanded upon and require critical information, specifically regarding the Suez Canal in relation to the Arab-Israeli wars and the timeline.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:

The introductory sentence clearly states the article's topic, without having less relevant information. There is no information in the lead section which is not mentioned later in the article. The rest of the lead has enough information and is not too overly detailed, although some information can be spared and should be in the later paragraphs (initial construction history of the canal).

Content:

All content is relevant to the topic, covers key information and includes recent renovations and also mentions 2021 Ever Given blockage so it is up to date. Very detailed in the "layout and operation" section. The timeline needs general improvement and relocation of some events, as continuity between early dates and more recent ones. Under the section “History of the Suez Canal” the Arab–Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973 paragraph is insufficient. There is literally one sentence for the 1973 war and for the 1967 one more information is needed (“closed except for a short period” - what happened?).

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article seems neutral.

Sources and References:

Many thorough sources used. Most recent reference dates 2007. One of the links for the sources does not work, the page does not open. In many paragraphs ex interim period there are sources missing.

Organization and writing quality:

No spelling or grammar mistakes. It is written in a clear way. At times more balancing of the different sections required. There are sections which only have a few sentences and need elaboration.

Images and Media:

There are many images that help understand what is written. Very helpful image for the alternative routes and also for the layout and operation section.

Talk page discussion:

The talk page for the article could be more active. Few discussions. The article is part of many Wikiprojects. It has been rated B-class although it is listed as a vital article level -4.

Overall impressions:

The article's status is that it is ok, but lacking for those who want an in depth understanding of the topic. It can be improved by including more information, checking sources (citing where missing) and balancing sections.