User:YellowstoneSandstone/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
California State Parks

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the California State Parks have tens of millions of visitors every year and cover a significant part of California's land, so this topic is definitely notable. However, the article doesn't provide the full picture about the parks; it's relatively short, and a significant part of the article seems to be dedicated to controversies and closures, as opposed to information about the park itself.

Evaluate the article
This article has some good information about the park system, but needs some reorganization and more sources.

Lead Section


 * The lead section has a good introductory sentence that accurately summarizes the article.
 * It doesn't include a brief description of the article's major sections, and includes some information that is not present in the article (specifically, the numbers for area covered/scope of the parks) - both these issues need to be fixed.
 * The current length of the lead section is good.

Content


 * The content in the article is mostly relvant; however, the operation section seems too long. The list of all the different natural and man-made features present in the parks doesn't seem particulary necessary.
 * The "Proposed closures" and "Controversies" sections both have alerts that say they need to be updated, since they were last modified in 2016. As a result, the content isn't all up-to-date.
 * The article doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. One possible gap that should be filled is representing the perspective of indigenous people who may have previously been living on land that is now designated as state parks; for instance, how the land was acquired.

Tone and Balance


 * On the surface, the article seems to be neutral, but there are certain sections that seem a bit biased.
 * The "Operation" section isn't written in neutral language; it says that the parks maintain the "state's finest" coastal systems, and says that they preserve an "unparalleled collection" of structures and habitats. However, by whose standards are they the finest, or are they unparalleled?
 * The closures and controversies sections seem to be disproportionately long, given the relative shortness of the article. While these issues are important to note, it should be balanced with more neutral information about the actual parks.

Sources and References


 * The Operation section has no citations; this is an issue that should be addressed.
 * The sources are thorough, but there are a few issues. For instance, citation [3] takes the user to a Contact Page that does not contain the information it is supposedly serving as a source for. The website itself is reliable (California Department of Parks and Recreation), but this isn't enough to be a good source.
 * As mentioned in the "Content" section, there is a lack of information past 2014 (apart from some statistical data). This isn't an issue with the existing sources, but rather an argument for additional (more recent) sources.
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors; as mentioned, I would like to see some perspectives from indigenous authors.
 * The links seem to work.

Organization and Writing Quality


 * The writing is clear and well-organized.

Images and Media


 * There is only one image - the seal of the California State Parks. It is well-captioned and relevant to the topic.
 * However, there could definitely be more images - for instance, a map of the parks could be helpful, rather than just a list of numbers regarding the parks.

Talk Page Discussion


 * Someone else on the talk page also pointed out that the "Proposed closures" section needs to be updated. Some of the information regarding the park closures is apparently inaccurate - namely, the number of parks that closed, and how some of the "closed" parks were actually taken over by local governments and nonprofits.
 * The article is Start-class, but Top-importance. It's part of the WikiProject California.
 * In class, we've mostly discussed the natural features and flora/fauna of the parks; this article mainly dicusses the parks from an operational standpoint.

Overall Impressions

This article is a good start, but it's still poorly developed overall. A lot of the information is out of date or inaccurate, and there is some information that is lacking. In addition, the references section is a bit sparse. The article is relatively good in terms of providing some of the core operational details, such as the number of parks and the organization's structure, but there could be more information about the parks themselves. Overall, this article needs a lot of editing.