User:Juliaminassian/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating an article about Mount Fuji.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because I am passionate about geography and have always wanted to visit Mount Fuji. I think articles like this one are important to educate people about the world around them. My first impression of the article was that it seemed thorough and expansive.

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.)

Mount Fuji
An article on the Japanese stratovolcano located on the island Honshū. I believe the piece is comprehensive, and any comments are gratefully received.

Review by Julia Minassian
An informative article on Japan's tallest mountain, but it is missing some important verifications and citations.

Lead Section
The opening sentence of the article clearly states critical facts about Mount Fuji. The lead section itself is concise, but I think the author could have included more details about the article's main sections to further introduce the reader to the topic.

Content
Overall, the content in the article is relevant to the topic and important for gaining a full perspective on Mount Fuji. However, the section on "Current Eruptive Danger" is not up-to-date, and the article needs updates to reflect more recent information. I also think that the section on "Culture" could have been explored further to match the depth of research in the other sections. Moreover, the article does not address Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral in tone, and none of the claims made appear particularly biased. The author does not attempt to persuade the reader to think anything specific about Mount Fuji, and there do not appear to be any differences in interpretation explained in the article.

Sources and References
Most of the facts explained in the article are backed up by sources with working links. The article features a variety of Japanese resources as well as articles written in English. I think the sources could benefit from being a bit scientific and neutral in nature, especially in regards to climate change and recent threats. However, there are reliable sources, such as scholar research. Some of the sources are current, but some pre-date the year 2000, and I think more time-relevant sources could be found to ensure the information is fully up-to-date.

Organization and Writing Quality
I think the content of the article is sensibly organized and easy to follow. There are very few grammatical errors, and the article is easy to read as well as navigate.

Images and Media
The images included in the article do enhance the reader's understanding, especially the diagrams used to explain the geological information. The captions of the images are simple but effective, and the images seem to adhere to copywriting regulations. Nevertheless, I think the images could be larger and more evenly spread throughout the article to enhance the presentation.

Talk Page
The Talk Page of the article is fairly inactive in recent years, but many of the conversations are about making edits to enhance clarity in the article. For example, a few conversations center around adding more information about Mount Fuji's status as a volcano to make it more clear to the readers. The article's rating is B-Class, and it is part of three WikiProjects: Volcanoes, Mountains, and Japan.

Overall Impressions
By and large, the article is informative and organized. I do think some edits could be made to better the presentation and relevance of some the sources. The article is well-developed and thorough.