User:N8Mar/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nimbus Fish Hatchery - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is within my field of interest, and there is room for additional content.

Lead section

 * The lead section is a bit brief; the introductory sentence is simply about the location and no further details.
 * The rest of the lead section fails to mention much about the different sections of the article

Content

 * Overall, the content is relevant to the subject of the article.
 * Most of the content is detailed, but a bit of it is out-of-date. Updated fish population numbers, and a balancing of talk about the Weir Repairs and Complications section could be an improvement.
 * This article does not represent topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

 * The tone seems balanced from a first read through, no inappropriate tone sticks out to me.
 * The article is neutral, as far as I can tell.

Sources and References

 * A few paragraphs include information that is not directly sources from one of the cited sources. (End of "History" section, "Concerns" subsection of the "Impacts and Concerns" section)
 * The sources that are included seem thorough, and relatively current.
 * It is not immediately apparent if the cited sources are written from a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Sources 6-8 are all dead links, as well as 15 and 16.

Organization and writing quality

 * The article is clearly written, concise, and easy to read.
 * I did not notice any spelling or grammar errors.
 * The organization of the topic is relatively well done, but it does appear imbalanced in quantity of information per section.

Images and Media

 * The article includes several images that are relevant and well captioned.
 * All of the images present follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations (as far as I can tell).
 * The images are laid out in a way that is neither appealing, nor unappealing.

Talk page discussion

 * Several conversations about the quantity of content for each section was noted, as mentioned above.
 * The article is considered Stub-class, and Low importance

Overall impressions

 * The article is in a good place, but has room for additional content and correction of dead links.
 * The article's strengths include a neutral stance, varied information on different parts of the subject, and clear and concise writing.
 * The article can be improved by adding more working links relevant to the information, and possibly new sections on modern use of the facility.
 * I would say this article is well-developed overall.