User:Holy9Man/sandbox

 Article evaluation: 

Part 1:

What to look for within an article:


 * 1) Lead Section - summary of the most important parts of the article,
 * 2) Info box- Not all articles have it, but use it to describe key elements
 * 3) Body of the article- Goes into depth about the topic
 * 4) Finish with references, references should always be included in Wikipedia articles.

Look for a quality rating, you can find this by clicking "Talk" at the top left of the article and you can find high quality articles being evaluated as "Good" or "Featured".

Elements of quality articles


 * 1) Detailed lead section
 * 2) Clear structure
 * 3) Balanced content
 * 4) Neutral tone
 * 5) Good sourcing

Overall if an article is bringing up factual information, there should be some form of references/citation to a source. These should also be good sources, the article should somewhat follow the 4 points listed above when you see an article.

 Part 2: 

Evaluating the Article:

After reading through the article it became clear why many people labeled it as low-importance in every aspect of topics that it included. I would argue the only useful thing that comes from this article is the sources. This is one of the Wikipedia articles where you wouldn't want to cite it directly, but look at the references and find a source from there. The facts referenced are basically just stated, it shows poor writing and to me it seems would take a lot of work to polish it up. The section I have issue with most is the Environmental, it really seems like a poor use of describing the environmental area in Hawaii, for example the water section states that hotels are placed near beaches and because of this it has led to a number of droughts. To me this just doesn't make any sense, there is no evidence to support this, and instead the writer links to a Wikipedia page of what droughts are. Another issue I find is with the introduction, to me there is no set structure. It just seems to be going all over the place from the moment the article starts. It starts with explaining the islands in Hawaii, then immediately after takes about the visitors and how much money they bring in, and how weather affects the people who visit and how Japan makes up the largest group of travelers in Hawaii. In the talk section, someone labeled the article as more of a encyclopedia, to which i would agree with as the article seems to present an arrangement of fun facts. From the notes I took in part 1, this article seemed to lack everything from a lead section to a clear structure. Overall some of the references are made in poor attempt (such as the random reference to what droughts are), but researching this topic I would look through the references list and find a proper source and educate myself more.

Question 1: ''Check a few citations. Do the links work? Is there any close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the article?''

The links seem to be working properly, however reading through the article it does seem like that some of the sentences are closely paraphrased from the references cited, so that could raise some issues on the authenticity and following the pillars of Wikipedia articles.

Question 2: If you could improve one thing about this article, what might it be?

Looking through the talk portion of the article, many people made several comments claiming that this article seemed to be like an advertisement and should be moved to Wiki-travel. I have to agree with this, it definitely did seem to be the case with this article. I think most of this comes from the fact that the article is so disproportional, and looking at what people removed before I could definitely see it improved from what it was before, but to improve the article I would say it would have to be deleted or moved to Wiki-travel. In order to keep it here I would say there should be more history included with analysis.