User:Jfoufo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Lumber River

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I worked on this article last semester and hope to spot any flaws I can work on later.

Lead section
I think the lead section is alright for this article, it describes what the article is about but doesn't give a very comprehensive idea of what is in the article itself. I feel that the article could be longer, considering that there is a lot of information not clearly evident in the lead section that is present in the rest of the article

Content
I think the article is up-to-date, all the sources and information is still accurate from what I can tell. I think there is missing content in that the last section could easily be added on, but I hope to fox that later on. I do, however, think this article does do well to represent an underrepresented population in tribal populations, which are mentioned in some depth.

Tone and Balance
I believe this article is fairly neutral, I think all the claims are well based in facts or at least historical record. I feel like a lot of the views in the article are underrepresented in that I feel like almost everything could be expanded on, and I don't think there are many minority viewpoints, which is ironic to me.

Sources and References
All the sources I was able to check were accurate and based in fact or historical record, as stated earlier. Not all the sources are super current, but they seem to still be reliable with still accurate information. There could be a diverse spectrum of authors for sources but with how small the topic is I can't ask for too much. I could stand to look for better sources but I wanted to focus on the wildlife found in the river. All the links I checked worked, fortunately.

Organization and writing quality
I followed everything well in my article, I think it's fairly well written. I don't notice any major grammar errors but I haven't done a deep analyzation of the page. The sections broken down are also fairly effective at what they talk about and how they're broken down.

Images and Media
There are only a couple images in my article, but they do a good job of showing the location and scenery of the Lumber River, they're well captioned and follow regulations. Wikipedia generally has the same pattern with their images, so I suppose they're appealing simply for following the same pattern.

Talk page discussion
The only real conversation I see is about how it's inappropriate to the article to have such constant mention of Native people living along the river. I don't see any ratings but I see that the article was part of 3 wikiprojects. Wikipedia differs in that it's more in depth and technical, whereas we just normally cover general topics, such as 'how do I edit the article?' and 'How do I find an article?'

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think it's still a fairly weak article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The things mentioned are fairly well explained, but there can be a lot more added anyway
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding more depth and topics regarding the Lumber River would help
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it's fairly underdeveloped. As a scientist I want to see more biological topics and wildlife sections to be really satisfied by it.