User:Movingqlong/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the Fairymead Sugar Plantation.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?,
Following the tutorial slides, I clicked on "Academic disciplines" and followed it to chemistry subpages. I eventually made my way to biomolecules because I had a biochemistry lecture today where we discussed biomolecules and carbohydrates. Sugar is a carbohydrate, so I kept following the subpages down until I found sugar plantations and clicked on the first one I saw. My first impressions are that it is quite a substantial article (compared to a few earlier articles considered for this activity (like the show Art Angel) for something I've never heard about. It is quite an interesting read, and is important because the plantation allowed for significant development to occur in the town and surrounding areas.

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 section is concise and is not too detailed nor too vague. The first sentence clearly states what the article will be about.

The content is well-organized. The "History" section is thoroughly developed, and is the major section. The content is up-to-date to my knowledge, as the article is about a plantation that existed historically, so no new content should appear. The only content that is missing is something about ownership transfer between 1938 to 1972, as the Young Brothers would have been old by then, or any other information explaining the merging of the plantation with other companies. This article is not common knowledge, so it does address the equity gap.

The tone of the article is neutral; it does not try to persuade or vouch for a particular side.

The sources are few but encompass current information on the topic. Better articles do not appear to be available; most of the search hits bring up tourist and travel websites. The most prominently cited article still works and upon further inspection, it appears most of the "History" section is copied verbatim from the source.

The article only has two sections, but it makes sense for the topic. The organization is good and there are no grammatical or spelling errors; it is very well-written.

The images included enhance understanding of the topic. However, I think a recent photo of what the Fairymead House looks like today should be included as well as there is a section on the Fairymead House. The images are well-captioned and are well-laid out but there is no indication of their source.

There are no conversations happening in the Talk page. The article is rated with a C. It is part of WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Queensland and WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge". As this is an article based on the history of a historical sugar plantation, it would maybe be referred to in class for its contribution to sugarcane-cutting technology whilst discussing the sugar industry.

Overall, the article is very interesting. It's strengths lie in concise and thorough history. It can be improved by having updated images and removing/revising sections plagiarized from its main source. It may also benefit from removing the section on the Fairymead House and allowing users to be redirected to that article if they wish to read more about it.