User:Davidjsmith97/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Enbridge Line 5

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

Line 5 is an important topic to evaluate and/or update because recent political events have created the conditions for the line's closure which will have significant impacts on gas prices in Canada, specifically in Ontario. The article does not reflect these recent, significant changes.

Evaluate the article

Lead:

The lead section is adequate but could be fleshed out with more detail. It identifies that Line 5 is an oil pipeline owned by Enbridge that moves oil from Western to Eastern Canada via the U.S. Great Lake States, but it doesn't include details like where the petroleum originates and where its final destinations are, i.e. which Canadian provinces produce the oil that moves through Line 5, and which provinces refine the product that moves through Line 5. The capacity of the pipeline is cited from 2013, if there is a source with more recent capacity information it could be updated. The lead section does not contain a brief description of the article's major sections, for example it makes no mention of the considerable political controversies relating to Line 5, it simply mentions the line runs through environmentally sensitive territory.

Content:

The content of the article, like the lead, is adequate but could benefit from more detailed information. The 'Route' section contains several dead hyperlinks which should be fixed. This section could benefit from more information about the start and end destinations of the product that goes through the pipeline, not simply the geographic parameters of the pipeline itself. The route section notes Line 5 runs first through Rapid River, but it doesn't have any information on what facility it runs through and who does the work of stripping NGLs there. The hyperlinks to "Line 6", "sidestream", "Detroit", "BP Husky", "Marathon", "Enbridge Line 6" and "Enbridge Line 7" are all dead. The 'History' section jumps from initial construction in 1953 to 2013, surely there is more to the story of Line 5 than that. The paragraphs dealing with a 2018 screw anchor issue in the twin lines running under the straits is clearly out of date and needs revision, a section of it appears to be copy and pasted from a news article and contains no information about whatever remedy occurred. The 'Controversies' section does a good job of broadly outlining why some environmentalist groups want Line 5, or at least the twin lines under the Straits, to be decommissioned. The article needs a new section on the November 13 issue of notice from Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer revoking the easement that allows Line 5 to operate, and the ensuing contention from Enbridge that Whitmer does not have the authority to unilaterally revoke said easement.

Tone and Balance:

The article does a good job of presenting neutral information and facts without skewing towards a particular narrative. There is room for improvement though in balancing the information presented. The article does not include any information from Enbridge or stakeholders and communities that will be negatively impacted by closing Line 5.

Sources:

The sourcing is good, but sparse. Where there is specific information it has very good quality sources, but the breadth of the information is lacking.

Writing:

The writing, for the most part, is fine. Some sections could use work on flow and readability. The 'History' section in particular, as noted above.

Images:

The Article could greatly benefit from some visual aids showing the region through which the pipeline runs, perhaps a map showing where it starts and ends, how it fits into the wider Enbridge network of pipelines, etc.

Talk Page:

The Talk Page has only two comments on it, one is relating to specific tweaks to links in the article and the other is a query on additional reference for one of the articles sources. I note that the article has been rated as "Start-Class" by two different WikiProjects that it falls under, which is consistent with the rest of my comments that it is adequate but could be improved through more contribution. The WikiProject Energy has rated this article as having low-importance, which I find curious given the recently renewed political controversy on this file and the high stakes for communities that will be impacted if Line 5 does close this spring.

Overall:

The article is fine, it doesn't contain any glaring inaccuracies or painful writing, it just needs some more contribution to raise its overall quality. I would rate it as underdeveloped but not poorly developed.