User:Mmaley2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Meteorologist

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article as meteorology is a field that I have interest in, and I want to learn more about what a meterorologist does. This article matters as many like myself may be curious as to what meteorology consists of, and this article may inspire people to study this science. My preliminary impression of the page was positive, as it was detailed, contained photos, and multiple sources. The page provides a good overview of the topic; however, it could be a bit longer in length.

Evaluate the article
The lead provides a strong introduction as to what a meteorologist is; however, it does not give a concise overview as to what the article will entail. It solely focuses on the roles that a meteorologist takes on. It is not overly detailed, but does need more information. The rest of the content after the lead is relevant, yet still could use a few additional sections to give a wider overview on the job. It doesn't go into detail about weather presenters, and focuses only on forecasters and researchers. The article's content is up to date, as many of the references are dated in the past few years. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The article is written in a neutral standpoint, yet significance is put on certain types of meteorologists, which may lead some to believe there is bias. However, there is no personal takes on any of the informatin given - the article does not attempt to persuade the reader. The majority of the facts in the article are backed up by a reference, with the exception of a few minor details. The sources are thorough and provide reference to respected articles and journals, in addition to being current. The links given all work, yet a few more in depth resources could have been used, such as ones like scientific journals.

The article is well-written, and is easy to understand and follow. It contains no gramatical or spelling errors. It does have the potential to flow a bit better, but overall has been done well. It does contain multiple sections, organizing the content into specific divisions which enable the reader to jump to a particular topic. The article contains three relevant pictures with captions to go along with the content; however, one of the photos could be updated as it showcases an old computer in it. The article could also use a few more photos to engage the reader a bit more, and include them in a layout different than what is currently in place, which is all of the photos on one side of the page.

In the talk section, the article is currently featured in the WikiProject Weather, and is rated on Start-class on the project's quality scale. Additionally, rated as high-importance on the importance scale. It is also supported by the General meteorology taskforce.

Overall, I would say the article does a good job of providing a basis of understanding for what a meteorologist does, but still needs some work. Information such as what meteorology is, and an in-depth explanation on the different types of meteorology would improve the strength of this article.