User:Nicgrana/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Yellowstone Caldera

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because this is a topic that has interested me since I was a little girl. I believe it is an important article because the authors have included important scientific evaluations that are necessary for the layperson to stay informed and not be swept away by non-scientific media sources sources spreading misinformation. While there has been notable activity in the caldera in recent years, the public does not need to be alarmed because there are more clues indicating that the activity is slowing down substantially and the caldera is not "overdue" for an eruption since these eruptions are highly unpredictable.

Evaluate the article
 Lead Section 

- The introductory sentence is clear, concise, and does a good job of introducing the topic being reviewed.

- The lead section includes some information regarding the major sections of the article but it mainly just gives an overview of the location of the Yellowstone Caldera and what eruptions contributed to its formation. This information is expanded on in the subsequent section

- The lead is clear and concise without an overload of information. It wouldn't hurt to include a tad bit more information; it could make the lead section a bit more captivating.

 Content 

- The content is relevant and up-to-date. The most recent references are from March 12, 2021.

- There does not appear to be an gaps in information or extraneous content.

- The article does not cover any topics regarding historically underrepresented populations or topics

 Tone and Balance 

- The article is successfully written from a neutral point of view without any attempt to persuade the reader

- Upon reviewing the talk page for this article, revisions have successfully fixed any contradictory or baseless claims that were previously included

 Sources and References 

- The article is supported by a fairly substantial list of reputable sources with a healthy mix of scientific journals with some other media sources, such as The New York Times and USA Today News.

- Sources are very thorough and range from the years 1988 to 2021. The majority of the sources are from 2005-2014.

- There is a diverse spectrum of authors and they represent the best and most informed sources.

- I clicked on a handful of sources and they were all working. Some journals have limited access but the links to them worked.

 Organization and Writing Quality 

- The writing is clear, concise, and easy to read with no grammatical or spelling errors

- The sections are well-organized and flow together very well.

 Images and Media 

- Well-captioned images that adhere to Wikipedia's regulations are included

- The images certainly encourage a better understanding of the caldera

- The images are set up in a visually appealing way, however, they are a bit too small to be easily seen or understood without having to click to expand the image

 Talk Page Discussion 

- This article is a part of the WikiProjects Volcanoes (top importance), Geology (high-importance), and United States / Wyoming / Yellowstone Task Force (mid-importance) and is rated-C

- Discussions in the talk page focus on correcting misleading information

 Overall Impressions 

- Overall, the article is very well-written and follows all of the guidelines from the module.

- The only thing that I think could help improve the article is to make the images bigger on the article page to make it easier for the reader to understand the images without having to leave the page.