User:Sophiegeary/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mendenhall Glacier

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
When deciding which article to evaluate I followed some of the links to explore topics and found a like to landmasses and then glaciers. I chose to search for the Mendenhall Glacier since I saw it this summer while visiting Alaska with my family. We got to walk around on the glacier after being dropped off by a helicopter and I was astonished by its magnitude and beauty. I think its a pretty spectacular land mass and people should take the time to learn about it.

Evaluate the article
The lead section does a good job proposing a broad introduction to the topic of the glacier. The section introduces the concept of the glacier retreat, an important aspect regarding this landmass, along with the general size, location and current research. I think that the lead goes into a little bit of unnecessary territory as it begins to discuss the scientific outlook that the glacier might experience a period of stabilization. This fact could be more appropriately discussed in detail in the Retreat section to make it more cohesive and prioritize the most important information in the lead section.

The content of the Mendenhall Glacier Wikipedia page is very well organized and seems to cover most relevant information. There is some outdated information on the Wikipedia page which could benefit from up-to-date statistics. Additionally, I think that the Flooding section could be elaborated on further since it is only two sentences. In one section it mentions how far the glacier has receded and the citation is from 2015. I also found more information from NASA regarding recent events such as a flood in 2023 that essentially created decades worth of intense damage to the glacier. I appreciate that there is an acknowledgement to the histories, folklore, and alternate names of the glacier with respect to the original people who lived there.

The article is well balanced, it is definitely written from a neutral point of view. The article is largely fact based with no opinions. The article presents multiple view points, even pointing out possible positive effects that the recession of the glacier has led to.

Regarding sources and references, the lead section is well cited besides the last paragraph which doesn't have any sort of citation backing up the research information and claim. All quotations are cited, and the rest of the page appears to be cited well in terms of all of the information accounted for by some sort of article. The articles that this wikipedia page draws from seem to be slightly outdated for the most part, with some of the articles being from as early as 2002 or 2007. Upon searching further I noticed that some of these pages had been updated so it could be useful to look into updating statistics.

The article is well organized and the categories were well chosen (name, flooding, retreat, visitor center, and romero the wolf). I would probably reorganize the VIsitor Center section to be labeled something more all encompassing such as Visitation and split the paragraphs up into subcategories of Visitor Center and Trails and Other access.

The images are beautiful and give a few different perspectives of the glacier. They are cited correctly and captioned well describing each photo perfectly. I would recommend adding a few more recent photos to it, and possibly some demonstrating the tours that are available (such as the one I went on).

After reviewing the Talk section I understand that there was some discourse regarding the length of the Retreat sections of the page. I believe that it was an adequate amount of discussion, considering the retreat of this glacier affects every aspect of it and is important. I also noticed that the section about the positive aspects of the retreat such as the old trees it revealed, is a newer edit after people got annoyed in the talk section about the lack of information. This article is C-class. It is of mid importance to the WikiProjects Alaska and Glaciers.

Overall I think it is a pretty good article. It is strong in its content, balance, and images. The sources could be updated to have more relevant information and the organization could be cleaned up a little to be even more cohesive but I think that it does a great job of giving a run-down on this glacier.