User:NickleJac/Evaluate an Article

Article: Beach

Lead Section

Overall, the article does not do a great job of providing a lead section that effectively describes the sections of each article. However, it does give a good definition of the term and goes into a detailed description of where you can expect to find it.

Content

The content of the article is extremely thorough provides an excellent description of this aspect of geography, and goes to great scientific lengths to accurately describe beaches and how they came to be. I would argue that maybe the section is erosion is not necessary to include in this particular article, but it is related to beaches, so I would say that it is not entirely irrelevant. Maybe the section name could be changed to Beach Formation, as it would be more relevant to the article itself, and would still accurately describe the content of the section.

Tone and Balance:

I believe that the tone of the article is perfect for what it is. It does not present any opinionated points and just sticks to the science and history of the usage of beaches. The content does seem pretty up-to-date as well. Overall, I don't see any issues with the tone of this article.

Sources and Reference:

The sources in this article are correctly cited and are generally reputable sources. However it is important to note that this topic is not related to health and psychology, so it does not have to follow those guidelines. There also needs to be more sources I believe, as there are a lot of scientific facts presented in the article, but they are not all backed up by sources. There are quite a few sources that are starting to get a little old, although I'm unsure of how important this is considering the topic of the article.

Organization

I found the organization to be easy to read. It is very well organized, the information is neatly presented, and the language is easy to follow.

Images and Media

All of the images used are captioned, follow Wikipedia's regulations, and are visually appealing. The images are also very good at showing the topic of the article and are all relevant.

Overall Impression

Overall, this article is solid. Its strong points would be the images within it, the organization of the article, and the thorough content presented. There are a few improvements that could be made, such as citing more information presented, renaming a section, and presenting a summary of chapters at the top of the page.

pWhich article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

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.)

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.)