User:Huzmir1014/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2011 Virginia Earthquake

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Considering the subject of the course is "Earth Fury" I found it fitting to choose an on subject article with a tie to me geographically. The initial reaction was positive with the page being formatted very well, including many labeled images, and having 122 sources; all signs of a well written article.

Lead Section:
The introductory sentence is extremely concise and completely and clearly describes the topic. The date, magnitude, region of impact, nearest city. time of event, epicenter, type of earthquake, severity, and aftershocks are all covered in just in first introductory paragraph. The second and third introductory paragraphs go over the damage done both monetarily as well as death toll as well as discussing the human response to the event. The lead section, though describing most of the subsequent sections, misses some subsections including the Zoo Animal Reactions. No extraneous or unnecessary information is included in the lead section, it merely contains a brief and concise overview of the rest of the article.

Content:
The article is extremely on topic and contains no information that strays away from the broad umbrella of the 2011 Virginia Earthquake. Moreover, the last time that the page had been updated as of 09/17/21 was 09/2/21 so the content is extremely up to date considering the event happened 10 years prior to the most recent update. The main content is very encompassing and leaves no stone unturned, going into depth on the geological aspects of the event including aftershocks, the effects felt not only in Virginia but in order locations as well from DC all the way up to Canada, the events presence or impact on social media and internet traffic, as well as other interesting facts. If I were to be picky, there is one aspect of the article that isn't vital to the overall topic of the event; the final subsection titled Zoo animal reactions. Though interesting and definitely related to the earthquake itself, I feel that it doesn't gel very well with the overall feel of the article and seems very out of place. Moreover it is only around 2-3 sentences long as is not really needed. The content does not discuss any underrepresented persons or topics.

Tone and Balance:
The article is factual through and through with no biased statements or statements implying a position held by the writer. Considering the topic of the paper is a documented event the article simply shares detailed of the event as it unfolded as well as unbiased descriptions of surrounding research of the seismic activity by experts as well as the reaction by the population that were in the radius of impact. From what I read I was never being persuaded to feel a certain way about the information.

Sources and References:
This article boasts a respectable 122 sources, however because the event was in 2011 a large majority of the sources fall in the years 2011-2013 thus are not technically current. But, in the context of the actual content of the paper all of the sources are current and reliable date wise. Moreover, there is a healthy mix of governmental sources (USGS, Seismological Society of America, American Geophysical Union, Virginia Department of Mines Minerals and Energy, and many others), expert or published sources (Department of Geology, College of William & Mary, as well as other sources from public databases), and national/local news sources (The Washington Post, Wichita Business Journal, USA Today, Virginia Business Today, Charleston Gazette, and many more). I feel that there is a healthy mix between primary sources such as governmental or collegiate/published articles and journals as well as local and national news sources. Moreover, I feel the inclusion of local news in particular is important for subjects such as the local response to the event considering local news would have the most accurate information on a subject such as this. Some random websites are used such as Business Insider for example, which could have been replaced by more credible organizations however a major majority of the sources used have a credible foundation and offer accurate and unbiased information. The links seemed to work properly with no issues when testing a random handful.

Organization and Writing Quality:
The organization of the article is on point with no confusion and the writing is clear and concise with no spelling errors. I personally believe that putting the research of the quake before the effects in locations/areas within the radius of impact messes with the linear flow of the paper. I would have organized it as such; geology, aftershocks, effects, research, internet activity and social media, zoo animal reactions. Other than minor issue in organization the paper was very high quality.

Images and Media:
The article includes 10 very well captioned images. 4 of the images show maps and diagrams showing intensity, impact range from the epicenter, locations of faults in Virginia, and an infrared map of the earthquakes range. The other six images ranged from damages from the earthquake, videos showing mass chaos, and national buildings/monuments damaged or affected by the quake. All images follow the copyright rules of Wiki, however the organization of them is not very appealing. All of the 6 images displaying real world damages and buildings are small and pushed on the right side of the page. This makes it hard to even see each image and makes the page look very robotic and gives it an unappealing look.

Talk Page Discussion:
The talk page is active and discussed a variety of issues. There is a discussion of possible plagiarism in which the previous author copy pasted an excerpt straight from the USGS source they used. One user suggests adding a point on the sudden water drop at Lake Anna post quake. Another user comments on how the zoo animals sensing the earthquake before it occurred seems like folklore and didn't really belong in the page. Finally one user fixed commented on external links that weren't working properly. This article is part of of the earthquakes, United States, Virginia, Richmond, and Disaster management WikiProjects. The article is rated as one of the Geography and place good articles.

Overall Impression:
This article is very well developed and has an overall status of good. Some major strengths are the articles unbiased and concise nature and how it not only discusses the effects of the quake in Virginia but extends to areas of interest. Some weaknesses are the organization of the images and the controversial inclusion of the Zoo Animals piece.