User:Guzz7267/Evaluate an Article

I evaluated the "Space for Life" Wikipedia page (link below). This article in itself was not very long. I had quite a bit of trouble trying to figure out navigating the pages and how to read the articles.

Space for Life

Lead Section

The lead did a really good job of concisely describing what Space for Life is. However, it did not include an introduction of the sections to be included. To be fair, there weren't may sections so I don't think this is entirely necessary to include. It does not include information that is not present in the article.

Content

The article's content is relevant to the topic, up to date, and is not missing any information that I can tell. I believe that it likely deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, I think that it is interesting to learn that all of these museums in Canada are called Space for Life. I also think that this page makes it easy for users to Google and find what they were looking for.

Tone and Balance

The article has a good tone and balance. There is a neutral point of view, there are no claims or viewpoints that are biased or over/underrepresented. The article was not persuasive.

Sources and References

The facts are all backed up by sources. There are only two links, but they both work. They are all from 2012 or 2013, so not the most current and perhaps there is newer information. There is more current information that is only days or weeks old that could be added. The sources could stand to be more diverse.

Organization and Writing Quality

This was well-written, clear, and concise. There are no spelling or grammar errors and the layout makes sense.

Images and Media

The image captions need to be more detailed, as a third party they make little sense. They are somewhat visually appealing, though I think this could be improved upon. They are cited and follow copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion

There is minimal talk page discussion, it is talking about one of the sources. It is a part of 3 WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions

I think that this article could be a little longer, more detailed, and have more up to date sources. I understand the need to be concise, but it feels like they are almost leaving out information. I think that the article did a nice job being straight to the point in the first few sentences. It also was well-written with a neutral viewpoint. I think as it currently stands, I would label this underdeveloped with suggestion to update sources and add more relevant information. Additionally, update imaging and captions.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

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.)