User:UCstudent2023/Evaluate an Article

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

Talk:Marine mammal park - Wikipedia

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 to evaluate this article because I noticed it needed a lot of citations and work and I am interested in the topic.

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- pretty good, could explaining exactly what a marine mammal park is could be longer and more detailed. Beginning sentence is captivating and gives a basic run down of what ocean mammal captivity is. Lead sentence is concise.

Content- The content is just history, a small statement about what marine mammal parks are and some locations, definitely can use some more information and detail. content is up to date. I did not notice any equity gaps.

Tone and balance- tone is neutral. no heavy bias, no persuasion. No viewpoints of someone who actually worked with ocean mammals in captivity, that would be helpful.

Sources and references- pretty clear and easy to read. Very few citations and a few spots that say (needs citation).

Organization and writing quality- the article is nicely organized and well written with lots of facts but definitely could have more detail and information.

Images and media- one image and one map definitely will need media as more information is added to the cite. Article does include images that enhance the reader. Picture and map are properly titled. All images are copywritten. Images and map are appealing.

Talk page discussion- talk page is just two statements of people adding it cites and new information, no discussion about the topic.

Overall impressions- I like this article it has a lot of basic ideas and information of captive ocean mammals, but it is definably not complete yet and needs some further improvement. The articles strengths are that it has a lot of useful information and a really good base. It can be improved by adding citations and more information. The article is definitely underdeveloped and needs information added.