Article Critique

I recently visited the Whidbey Island page on Wikipedia and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: It's missing details, the links to non-existing articles, and It's lack of current sources.

Missing Details

When it comes to Wikipedia articles, locations tend to get more coverage dependent on how well know the area is. Whidbey Island, despite having a good amount of coverage, still manages to leave out a few minor details. A perfect example of this is when the article mentions the Deception Pass Bridge. The article gives a small amount of information about the bridge's past, which to some can seem adequate, but for me, knowing the importance of this bridge, I believe there should be a little more background. I happen to know that the Deception Pass Bridge construction was one of the projects that came out of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. I believe this is an important piece of information the reader you know. That said, I don't believe this page needs a whole section devoted to the Deception Pass Bridge, I just believe there should be a little more information than what is currently presented.

Links to Non-Existing Articles

Links on Wikipedia are very important, a reader may not know exactly who, or what the article is talking about without links to their own individual pages. That is why when I came across Whidbey Island's Wikipedia page and found there were links to pages that didn't even exist, I was kinda surprised. If one was to look at this Wikipedia article and they find a portion of the article in which they didn't understand, they couldn't just use the links to these pages because they simply don't even exist. A perfect example of this is when It comes to the Health Systems portion of the page. The article references Whidbey Health as the region's county hospital, but yet it doesn't seem to have a page, although there is a link for it. This could change later however, with a creation of a Whidbey Health page.

Outdated/Lack of Sources

Sources are the keys to any Wikipedia article, and when it comes to Whidbey Island's page, there doesn't seem to be too many sources. On top of that about half of the sources are anywhere from 10-17 years old, which doesn't usually guarantee that the information is too accurate. There are still current sources, but the fact that there is so much dated information could be concerning.

Summary

Overall when it comes to Whidbey Island's Wikipedia article, I'd say it's a pretty good article despite some of the minor critiques I made. The article is very thorough with most of it's content, despite some minor lacking details. Maybe one of the biggest concerns would be some of the outdated sources used, but even then there are enough current articles to compare and crontras with. I believe this article is very well done and there's only a few things I would do to change it, such as find newer sources and adding a little more detail to the content already there, otherwise, I'd say it's very well done. t