User:Stacy.johnson515/Evaluate an Article

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

National Corvette Museum

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 this article because I am from Bowling Green, Kentucky, where the Corvette Museum is located.

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.)

Lead Section: The lead section is concise, beginning with a good description of the articles topic. The lead mainly talks about how tours are no longer available, but doesn't state why.

Content: The content of this article focuses on the sink hole that happened in 2014. Some of the information is irrelevant to the Corvette Museum because it discusses the formation of sink holes and other existing cave passages. This information is not needed for someone just looking to learn about the museum. The content could've included information about its history, as well as current events that happen there now.

Tone and Balance: This article is neutral. It is unbiased and doesn't persuade the readers of anything.

Sources and References: For the length of the article, it has a good amount of sources. Most of the sources cover the incident that took place, so there isn't many updates since then. I would say they are credible because it is multiple sources covering the same event. Also, the information about the reopening and the new exhibit came from the Corvette Museum website.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing quality was good for what was there. I feel like the author spent too much time discussing sink holes rather than more topics concerning the museum. It was, however, easy to read and well organized.

Images and Media: There were 3 images included. It included the Corvette Museum logo, a Kentucky map where it is located, and the entrance sign of the museum. I don't think the images support the text very well. Considering the whole text was about the sink hole, there could've been an image of the damage, the exhibit, or even the model of cars that fell in.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page is very limited. I don't see any discussion of the article. That may mean that this article is not as credible if it wasn't discussed by other authors.

Overall Impression: I think the article is undeveloped. It could have more information added to help strengthen it. A strength of the article is that it includes a major event that impacted this attraction. I would just include information about its history or why is it located in Kentucky. Overall, the article was a decent start, but could use some variety.
 * Yep, underdeveloped--totally. Now, I don't necessarily want to blame that one editor (if it was just one editor, haven't checked the history, but it's likely); if the rest of the article was fleshed out this wouldn't be so noteworthy. As it is, the sinkhole content is undue--see WP:UNDUE, not necessarily because of "viewpoints", but based on sheer article content. Update: it's here, and you know what, I am just going to replace the new content with the old--it's drastic but it will improve the article. Oh, the sourcing, it's noteworthy that I see no secondary sourcing (proper sourcing) about the museum at all besides the sinkhole business. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)