User:Sssnyder1596/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Zion National Park - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because it is a place in which I have a strong interest for. This is an important park in the United States National Park system, so it is important to have the correct information. My first impression was that it was overall accurate and reliable.

Evaluate the article
The article begins with a strong lead explaining the basics of the park such as what it is, the location, the geography, the species that are common there, and when it became a national park. The article contains relevant and important information regarding the topic which is fair and balanced all throughout. All sections are roughly equal, and none seem to overpower one another. The article carries a straight statistical tone, does not contain any attempt of persuasion on the subject, and all viewpoints are represented. There are many diverse sources included in the references. All paragraphs have their sources cited as well as all valuable pieces of information. The links work and sources range from the year 2008-2022, covering a diverse range of information. The article is clear and organized with little to no grammatical errors. Each piece of information mentioned in the lead is clearly broken down into their own section. Each picture used is cited and none seem to be copyright material. The images used coincide with the information happening in that section. Images are laid out in a manner that is visually appealing and that makes sense. In the talk pages, users are discussing things like the images that are being used, the information about the park's trails and geography, the links and references included, and the layout of the sections. The article is a part of four different WikiProjects. Overall, I believe this article to be well-checked, organized, comprehensible, and appealing for a reader who is knew on the topic. Its strengths are that it is concise, statistical, and clear. I believe certain sections may be a little lengthy and loose attention of an audience, meaning it is possible for those sections to be shortened as an improvement. I would say this article is well-developed. (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.)