User:Madeline Bailey/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Love Canal

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it is a topic I am interested in that pertains to my current field of study. It matters because it is historical and educational, providing context to a significant environmental disaster, the importance of environmental policy and environmental agencies, and the power of grassroots movements, activism, and media coverage.

Evaluate the article
Lead:

The lead of this article includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead also provides a brief description of the majority of the article's major topics, although I do thing it would be beneficial to include a line about the activism that took place. Almost all of the information in the lead is detailed further into the article, however there is a line about archived historic documents and photographs being stored at the University of Buffalo, which is not referenced again.

Content:

The article's content is all relevant and up-to-date. It was last edited February 4th, 2024. There is no content that is missing or doesn't belong. I don't believe this article addresses Wikipedia's equity gaps, as it does not discuss or represent historically unrepresented groups. It does, however, represent the perspective of the residents of Love Canal being negatively impacted by the chemicals.

Tone and Balance:

The article appears to be unbiased, however an editor in the Talk page suggests that some parts contain a pro-Hooker bias. It appears all viewpoints are represented evenly. The article does not attempt to sway the reader one way or another.

Sources and References:

There is a source used in this article which, according to an editor in the Talk page, is not factually backed up. Eric Zuesse's February 1981 essay, "Love Canal: The Truth Seeps Out" is used as a reference and apparently contains inaccuracies which are stated in part of this article. Sources used range in dates, anywhere between 1979 and 2021. Majority of sources do reflect available literature on the topic and come from a wide variety of authors. The links included in the article are working.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is well written: concise, clear, and easy to read. It does not contain any grammatical or spelling errors. It is well organized and broken into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Images and Media:

The article does contain some images that enhance the understanding of the topic, although I feel that more could be used. The images are well captioned. The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images could be laid out in a more visually appealing way (perhaps by adding more).

Talk Page Discussion:

Editors in the Talk page are having discussions regarding the validity of some source material, whether or not any bias exists in the article, asking some edits to be checked out by others, and making some factual corrections. This article is rated B-class and is included in the following Wikiprojects: United States, Environment, Occupational Safety and Health, and New York (state). This article covers the majority of what we covered in class, just more in depth.

Overall Impression:

Overall, I think the article is very readable, informative, developed. There are some issues that need to be addressed, as mentioned in the Talk page, like the inaccurate source, potential bias in favor of Hooker, and some other small corrections that are needed. Otherwise, this article does a very good job summarizing the story of Love Canal from both angles.