User:Zanvit/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Putana (volcano))

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Seems like there is some information missing, there are some broken links, the citation to some particular information seems to not be as precise. Also, there are some

Lead section[edit]
The lead section could be improved. There should be a mention that it is a stratovolcano in the beginning. Also, there are some facts that are not cited like the uplift of 4cm, which is a work from Henderson (2014), also mentioned in Henderson (2015). To my opinion the lead is too concise but with overly detailed facts. There is also no mention of location, the nearest town is not mention which is always helpful.

Content[edit]
It is really well organized, and is relevant to the volcanology topic. There are some authors not mentioned that may be of importance to the article. Also, there are some broken links that should be fixed. The content is in general well explained and easy to read.

Tone and Balance[edit]
It is written in a neutral point of view. There are some overly developed topics.

Sources and References[edit]
As stated before there are some broken links, some references are not well cited but in general most of the information is there, it just needs to be reorganized and checked. Most of them are current works, but some older historical information is missing.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Organization and writing quality[edit]
The writing is clear and professional with well organized sections. I haven't found any spelling error, as said before seems easy to read in general.

Images and Media[edit]
The article has just 2 image. Although visually appealing since it is a fairly active volcano, they are not the best to represent the fumarolic activity mentioned in the wikipedia page. There is media also.


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? ??I guess?

Talk page discussion[edit]
Made a mistake and actually commented on them with all the suggestions I am making here, though, there is not much talk in the website. I hope my post will ignite some wikipedia talks. It is part of 4 wkipedia projects. all of them classified as start-class

Overall impressions[edit]

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * active?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is already started, might as well use the information and make it better
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Fixing some links, rewriting some minor sentences and reciting some sections. Also, there might be opportunity to include other scientific articles and more information, but I need to dive a bit into it.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is not well-developed nor is poorly develop. I believe that it can be improved.