User:JS4472/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
-  Talk:Volcanism of New Zealand - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I find New Zealand's volcano system to be very interesting. The article highlights important information on the specific geological features of New Zealand and why its volcano system is so active. The article gives a good description of key information such as hazards, major eruptions, volcanic areas, and cultural references.

Evaluate the article
The article, Volcanism of New Zealand, provides important information about how the country’s geological features were shaped by volcanoes. It also discusses how this activity continues today. The article has a fairly clear structure, with several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically or by theme, as you can see in the headings of hazards and major eruptions, as well as by the listing of specific volcanic areas. The article also includes images or diagrams when appropriate. It provides a good overview of certain major eruptions, such the Oruanui eruption and several other super eruptions that spread so much damage across the world. The article is very interesting and shows how New Zealand is one of the most active places today for volcanic activity. It also points out how volcanic activity poses threats, including the direct effects of explosions, lava, and pyroclastic flows that are serious hazards for New Zealand's population and can be widespread, even for eruptions of moderate size. Although there is much eruption activity still today, some areas are more active than others such as the Taupo Volcanic Zone and the Kermadec Arc. The article does a good job giving details on the activity of each island group in the region and it provides descriptions of most recent volcanic activity and the types of hazards that followed. Overall, the article is written without bias toward a particular point of view, and represents all the different viewpoints that reliable sources have expressed about the topic.

However, I do not see enough reliable sources cited throughout the article to back up some of the facts and statistics. There is definitely an underdeveloped reference section and some sections contain little information and have headings that say “edit.” I also find there is imbalance in some of the sections, with some being long and highlighting a lot of interesting information, while other sections are barely a couple of sentences. In the cultural references section in particular, there are value statements like “most well-known” without specific references and there are summaries of myths and legends that contain no citations or references at all. While some sections have appropriate references and are well-developed, others need a lot of work in my opinion and seem less credible.