This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: Delta Air Lines Flight 191
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I found a category of C-Class articles regarding aviation accidents and incidents. The crash of Delta Flight 191 is well known in the aviation community, mainly due to the cause which was the plane hitting a microburst on approach. Such an influential accident should have a quality Wikipedia page, which is why I chose to evaluate this one.

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Intro paragraph includes the flight, plane, brief description of crash, casualties, and determined cause, so yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Short and concise

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content up-to-date? Fairly up to date, the accident happened in 1985 (not much new information), but there are references retrieved in recent years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral? Yes, the article states details of the flight and facts about the crash and investigation
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, important facts about the crash are explored in greater detail, but that's to be expected.
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article just lays out how and why DAL191 crashed.

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? A few references are questionable
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
• Are the sources current? As current to be expected for an airplane crash that happened 35 years ago
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, but some aviation terminology might be difficult to follow for someone unfamiliar with the topic
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nothing egregious
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Small changes (mistakes in math, syntax errors, rewording certain phrases) and modifying external links
• How is the article rated? C-Class
• Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents and others
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status? High quality
• What are the article's strengths? Neutral tone, the article lays out what happened on Delta 191 without any commentary. It states what the events of the flight, what caused it to crash, and countermeasures to keep other crashes from happening
• How can the article be improved? Some references may be unreliable
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Very well-developed

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: