User:ElnF94/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Marten River Provincial Park
 * After looking online for information on local trails, I've discovered that most of the pages on provincial parks within my area are stubs. This article is part of several WikiProjects that are near and dear to my heart.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes a proper introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, this is a stub article with four sentences total.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead constitutes half of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise. I would not change the lead at all.

Lead evaluation
''The Lead of the article is very strong and concise. It has relevant information, and none of it seems out of place. The Lead is also the majority of the article, so it cannot be judged to its full extent.''

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, there is no irrelevant content.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is all within a few recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Plenty of content is missing regarding the history of the park and its features, but the content that is there does belong.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No. This is a page about a small provincial park in Northern Ontario.

Content evaluation
''All of the content that's on the page is relevant and important, but a lot of detail is missing. This is a stub with four sentences that could use more information.''

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this is not an opinion-based article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, this is a stub article that lists basic facts.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this is not an opinion-based article.

Tone and balance evaluation
This is an article with a neutral tone and nothing within it that requires a balance of opinion.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The list of campsites, number of campsites, and number of campsites without power are listed without source. The other facts can be traced to the two available, reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There are only two sources, but the two that are used are strong ones (an article by Bill Steer in the local paper and the official record for the park.
 * Are the sources current? Yes- both from 2017.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Of the two listed sources, only one has an author.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Both links work.

Sources and references evaluation
''Both of these sources are neutral and accurate, but more are needed. One author referenced means there is no way to judge the diversity of voices. The two articles present are very good.''

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is clear, easy to read, and concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no obvious spelling or grammar errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? This article has four sentences that are ordered well, but there isn't enough substance in the article to answer the question.

Organization evaluation
''The few sentences that are available are organized very well. It is a very good stub.''

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The map is accurate and helps convey the location but the image of the map is unwieldly next to a blurry image of the provincial park's entrance sign.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no captions on the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The single image adheres to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No- the image of the map is too large and the image is not notable.

Images and media evaluation
''This article only has one image of the welcome sign. It is blurry and conveys little, but a stub article with a blurry-but-relevant image is better than one without. This article could benefit from a picture of a main attraction.''

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations on the page.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Stub and low-importance across the board. The article is part of the Canada and Protected Places projects, and it is supported by the Ontario and Canadian Geography projects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Only project templates- no talk to be had.

Talk page evaluation
''Most of the talk behind the scenes will likely be in the talk pages of provincial parks and in the various projects. There are project templates, but no talk on the actual page. This article is a low-importance stub but it is part of several important projects.''

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Stub but solid.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's tone is excellent, the right projects know about it, and the information conveyed seems accurate.
 * How can the article be improved? More information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped, but not poorly developed.

Overall evaluation
''This is a stub article with a lot of room for expansion. The content that is already available is solid. The biggest (and most necessary) improvement needed is adding more information. Prior editors did solid work here.''

Optional activity
''N/A. I will save the questions for the relevant projects.''