User:Kuzey Gunesli/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Babb Creek

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose Babb Creek due to the lack of information presented on the Wikipedia page. There are studies done on the Babb Creek watershed concerning remediation efforts following acid mine drainage from nearby coal mining operations. The creek was even declared biologically dead in the early 1900s due to the inability of aquatic wildlife to persist in high heavy metal concentrations. I believe the history of the Babb Creek watershed is important in terms of environmental remediation, mining hazards, aquatic ecology, and restoration ecology.

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 first sentence of the article is concisely and clearly describes the topic alongside providing information on the length, association, and location of the creek. The lead section does not provide include a brief description of the article's major sections. The lead does not contain information that is not in the article and it is very concise.

The article's content is relevant to the topic and looks up to date. However, there is definitely content missing in terms of the history of Babb Creek. There have been very significant ecological restoration efforts following acid mine leachate contamination which should be included. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and it does not relate to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The article is neutral and there are not claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. The viewpoints in the article are not underrepresented or overrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints in the article. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

All the facts in article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information. The sources are thorough enough for the information presented in the page, however, additional sources will be required to improve the article in any way as the sources present only provide limited information on the name and physical attributes of Babb Creek. Some sources are current and some are not, there are sources from 1979, 2004, and 2012 alongside a source for the elevation of the creek without any information on when it was retrieved. Interestingly, a source that is dated March 29, 2012 was retrieved on August 8, 2011, which is most likely an error that occurred when the information was cited. The sources do not reflect the available literature on the topic as there are more sources of literature that can be used in the article which provide information on the restoration and contamination history of Babb Creek. The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors (there is only one author, the rest are websites or programs) and do not include historically marginalized individuals whenever possible. In terms of the information provided in article, it is only physical data retrieved from appropriate sources such as the U.S. Geological Survey therefore better sources are most likely not available. However, more up-to-date data from the same sources will improve the article. All of the sources work except the source from 1979.

The article is well written, concise, clear, and easy too read. The article does not have any grammatical errors. Since the article is only one section, it should be improved by adding more sections to more accurately reflect the information about the topic.

There are two well-captioned images, one photograph and one map view, which give the reader a better sense of what Babb Creek looks like and where it is. However, more images could be added to further the understanding of the reader. The map view image is referenced, albeit not very clearly, but the photograph does not seem to be referenced. The images are laid out in an ordinary manner and do not appeal or insult the reader visually.

The only Talk page topic is about the name of the Creek. A user argued that the name of the creek is actually Babb's Creek instead of Babb Creek. However, another user referenced the USGS to show that it is actually Babb Creek. The article is a part of WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Rivers and it's rated Start class and Low-importance in both of these WikiProjects.

The article's status is Start-class. The article is very useful for quick referencing regarding the geographic location and the physical qualities. However, there is very limited information for users that are more interested in the events regarding Babb Creek. The article can be improved by adding information about the ecological history of the creek and the issues with the nearby coal mine acid drainage. The article is poorly-developed as there are only 3 sentences in the entire article.