User:Yange11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of the SkyTrain

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.)

Growing up in Vancouver, I was raised alongside the Skytrain system, which became an integral part of my life. In addition, I was always fascinated by the history of trains and transportation, and how these fundamental systems were built and operated. Therefore, I chose this article because it spoke to one of my passions and interests. This article matters because it gives me a good introduction to the history of modern transportation and the factors that were part of its construction. One of my career plans is construction and engineering— thoroughly reading and analyzing this article provides a glimpse towards planning and construction. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was very thorough and deep— giving a detailed timeline of the system's growth. The article also talked about Skytrain's impact, which connected with me personally as I was a frequent commuter.

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.)

After a deep analysis of this article, I felt that this article does a good job at covering thee complexities of the system while writing in an engaging way. Most of the components of the article were concise, and a lot of the issues raised were definitely related to the topic. Most of the information are up to date, and have extensive citations of the long term impacts of its construction. A part of the article that should have been added would have been the decision making process behind the project, and why the government decided on such a line. Because the article was focused on a fairly objective topic like construction and expansion, the tone was fairly neutral. However, there was an emphasis towards discussions about the negative impacts of the project, rather than the benefits. When I checked the citations, the links were working and the sources definitely supported the claims. Most of the sources were definitely reliable, with most coming directly from the local government's website. In the talks section, respectful conversations were occurring. The article was rated well, and was part of the Wikiproject on Trains. Overall, I found this article to be well-written and similar to the ideal articles discussed in class.