User:Izzy Eckert/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate Change in Wisconsin

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to me and after first reading it, I can see that it would benefit from more references and information. I can see that the article mostly quotes directly from one reference which lead me to the impression that this article could use some work.

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.)

The lead section of the article does not accurately introduce the content of the article. A brief description of the articles different sections is needed.

The articles content is relevant to the topic, however, most of the article's content is taken from the same source and is quoted directly. The content in the article taken from the resources is all within the past seven years. It is fairly up to date but could use some more recent information in addition to the resources already listed. While all of the content in the article is relevant, it needs to be expanded on and possibly more subtopics added.

As previously mentioned, most of the content in the article is taken directly from one source,, this source is a reliable one and is not biased. Therefore, the article is not biased and speaks from a neutral point of view.

There are three sources listed in the references section of this article. The first source is reliable and and thorough. The second source is is from NPR and is a little biased. It definitely needs to be backed up by a reliable second source. The third source is not used directly in the article, it is specific to Wisconsin and reliable, but does not have much information that would benefit the article. This article needs more reliable and relevant sources. There are good sources out there that would greatly benefit the article.

The article is well organized and there are no grammatical errors. The reason the article is well organized and does not have any grammatical errors is because it is word for word taken from another source. The subtopics are all relevant, they just need to be reworded and for more sources and information to be added.

There is one image included in the article, I do not believe that the image enhances the understanding of the article. There are more relevant images that could be included that would be beneficial.

There are no conversations happening on the talk page for this article. The article has been rated C-Class on the project's quality scale and has been rated Low-importance on the importance scale. The article is apart of WikiProject Wisconsin.

Overall, the article could use a lot of work. The direct quotes need to be reworded. Many more sources need to be added. The structure of the article is a good outline to work with and there is a lot of room for improvement. The article is underdeveloped.