User:Kikic123

Bio

Welcome to my page, fellow users. I (2001-Present) live in a State were it is very green and rains most of the year. I usually spend most of my time inside because of the rain. This give me time to watch my favorite tv shows and movies, such as Greys Anatomy, Toy Story, and The Fault In Our Stars. What I also like to do is read some good novels,the typical books I read are non-fiction.

What i'm most excited about on Wikipedia is learning how to edit, being able to find little mistakes in grammar. Subjects that I see myself writing about on Wikipedia are articles on today's topics, and Historical Articles. These articles fascinate me the most because I can stay informed about today's news, but also keep learning about the past. I am looking forward to learning more about the Wikipedia.

Thank you for visiting my page.

Article Evaluation

Even though I am very familiar with Seattle, I still learn new things about it everyday. One thing that caught my attention was the Great Seattle Fire. Wikipedia is a very big encyclopedia with many underdeveloped articles.This one however, is a well developed article that has lots of information. That being said there is always room for improvement. I visited the Great Seattle Fire article on Wikipedia and found 3 aspects worth commenting on: there are irrelevant sentences, the article is out of date, and some facts aren't cited.

Unnecessary sentences

Although this is one of the higher developed articles on Wikipedia, I did find two sentences that sounded repetitive. In the paragraph Magnitude of Destruction it said "over 1 million rodents were killed", then it begins to say a similar sentence in the paragraph right below it. I think stating this fact should only be told one time, due to the fact that rodents aren't the main topic.

Out of date

There were a few recent changes that were made to the article, but they weren't really drastic. I believe the main changes were made around 2007-2009, that is over ten plus years ago. Even though the sources are reliable, I would have to say that they are fairly outdated, and could be updated.

Citations

There are a lot of citations in the article, but there is still some paragraphs missing them. The general citations are listed at the bottom, which is a good thing, but it doesn't change the fact that there are some citations missing from important paragraphs. Over all I do think the citations were good, but there defiantly should be at least one in every paragraph.

Summary

All in all this is a well developed article. The information provided is very useful and has a lot of substantial facts, even though there are paragraphs missing citations, I wouldn't consider this article an unreliable source. This article could benefit from having more up to date sources. In the end I do think this a good article.