User:Takia02/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The article is based on something I'm familiar and have prior knowledge with. I am from Milwaukee; therefore, I have been to the airport a couple of times. This article will allow me to gain some knowledge about a subject I am familiar with.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The first sentence of the lead section is basic and states the topic(the airport). The lead section is short and very upfront. It introduces the topic and does into detail a little about what the page will explore. Overall the lead section is good, not too much just concise.

Content: The content is organize with a good portion of information about the topic. There is only so much you can say about an airport and I think this article gave the best of it. History, accident, airlines, and facilities is the overall content of an airport and all of that it provided.

Tone and Balance: The topic at hand is not an debatable topic. The information provided are facts provided with references.

Sources and References: There are 54 references with several external links. Majority of the information is backed up with a link of reference. A number of references are within the last 10 years. Although some are older.

Organization and Writing Quality: This article is very organize and easy to read. Every major idea has a subtopic instead of it all being smashed under one paragraph. The information is broken up with titles to be easy assessable and knowledgeable of the topic.

Images and Media: There are 6 labeled images in this article. Each image has a reference and is laid out significantly to provide a better understanding of the topic.

Talk Page Discuss: This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject and is rated as a B-class. The talk page was last active in 2018. The discussion of the talk page involve numerous edit ideas/errors.Overall Impression: The article overall all is okay. There is enough content of the article overall; however, some subtopics can be expanded/explained a little more. There are several reliable references to support the article. The organization and writing of the article is good. There are no major grammatical errors and t images provided are welly organized/plotted. The article itself is written for the general, not just one audience, as it well put together with an flowable understanding.