User:Kyloninjaren/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ancient Hawaiian aquaculture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because I thought it was going to be about the watershed or something, but in fact it was about fishponds in Hawaii, which is important because it is a dying tradition.

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 lead short and the whole article is basically just an overview. However, the lead was strong and told the reader enough, for some readers. The content is about an underrepresented topic and population. This article is decidedly unbiased. There are four sources, which is pretty good considering how small and succinct the article is. Two of them had working links to pages I could probably purchase the book at. The other two didn't have links at all. Organization and writing quality was rather up there for this one. However, it possibly could have had a longer body with more sections with headings and sub-headings. The images and media are a little poor. There's a really long quote from a manual that isn't cited in the references. Furthermore, the picture was to far to see the sluice gate, which I wanted to see. On the talk page someone just said there an inappropriate redirect. This article is of a lot of WikiProjects, and it's rated Start-class. the article's strengths are it's well-written and to the point, but it could use a larger body. I would say it's poorly developed just because I root for Hawaii to have a stronger presence on Wikipedia.