User:Josh Hwang/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Key Peninsula - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_Peninsula

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I live in a city within' the Key Peninsula back home (Gig Harbor, WA). It matters because the "Key Peninsula" Wikipedia page lacks depth and detail. My preliminary impression of the article is that it's very dry, and lacks content. I acknowledge the fact that Key Peninsula is not the biggest or most populated area of land, but it deserves more content than the existing article.

Lead section
In the Wikipedia article “Key Peninsula”, the lead section includes an introductory sentence, however, I think it contains an improper detail in parenthesis: (“The KP” or “The Key” to some locals). There is no reliable source that confirms this reference, making it an unverified fact. There is also no clear description of the article’s major sections.

Content
Most of the content in the article is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. However, there is missing content, such as the complete list of cities/towns, climate, rivers, lakes, etc. It also seems like it is slightly biased toward bringing attention to a local newspaper website towards the end of the article, for “more information”.

Tone and Balance
As mentioned above, it seems like it is neutral until the end of the article. It references one local newspaper company without further context or referencing any of its competitors. It also mentions two other references and names that seemingly point the reader toward these sources that are not on Wikipedia’s list of Reliable Sources. Upon further review, I realized that one of the names that are being promoted in the article (Ted Olinger) was the author of the Wikipedia article, making this a bigger issue of bias.

Sources and References
Not all of the facts/claims in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, nor are the sources very thorough. There were only two sources in the references at the end of the article, and those seemed reliable at first glance. However, it is clear that there is a lack of reliable sources in this particular Wikipedia page.

Organization and writing quality
The article is easy to read. It is clear and concise, though I feel that it could have been slightly more organized and thorough.

Images and Media
The article included one image that was relevant to the topic. However, it could certainly use a gallery to enhance the understanding and portrayal of the Key Peninsula (topic). The image is well-captioned and sourced as the Author’s “own work.

Talk page discussion
In the talk page, I saw some interesting discussions, one in particular about “Hicks” and “Meth” that caught my eye. It seems that one author wanted to mention methamphetamine was “distributed and manufactured on the key peninsula”, but it was contested due to a lack of references. I agree that it should not be on the Wiki page because “its a widely known fact” does not follow Wikipedia’s guidelines of a reliable source. I also agree with one author who determined that it was not correct to call residents of Key Peninsula “Hicks”, because it does not follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.

Overall impressions
On the top of this article, there is a notice that says: “This article needs additional citations for verification”. In conclusion, I would say that this article is in need of an update and edits to make it a viable Wikipedia article. The sources, content, and organization of the article could all be improved. I would consider this a poorly developed article, but I am excited to work on it throughout the first half of this quarter!