User:Mah1175/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1996 eruption of Gjálp

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this because the article seems short, so it will not be overwhelming to evaluate. I also think that volcanoes are interesting.

Evaluate the article
The lead for this article is very short, and while that is not necessarily a bad thing, the article suffers for it. It throws all sorts of scientific words at the reader, including some written in Icelandic, and doesn't provide any description of the actual eruption, just a small description of where the volcano actually is.

The content is well organized and is very easy to understand. While the continued usage of Icelandic words may be annoying to the reader, this time a small definition is provided for them. All relevant information regarding this event is present, from the first eruption to the flooding after, to the damage caused. It also explained how the event was a great learning opportunity for geologists, who had never seen any eruption like this one before.

The tone is neutral mostly, although this article does present an opinion at the start, but it clarifies that the opinion is a generally held belief in the science community and is not a verifiable fact. That is important to specify and clarify that it is a debatable point but still offering the info to the readers. The rest of the article is neutral so that is good.

The sources are all very verifiable and peer reviewed. They come from a variety of places including journals, and studies. They vary from which years they come from and are written by many different types of people.

There are relevant images that are definitely enhancing the reader experience. They are copyright compliant and organized in places that make sense.

The talk page is completely empty, so nothing notable there.

Overall this article does a good job at summarizing the 1996 Gjalp Volcanic eruption and its consequences.