User:Avaellea/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hunger in the United States

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Article #1: Looking over this article, I feel like it layed out a good foundation for what hunger and food insecurity are in the United States. It went over topics that included why food insecurity and hunger exist in certain areas and the demographics regarding it. It also went over the difference between hunger and food insecurity which is an important distinction to make.

Article #2: This article form first glance seemed to have a lot of information regarding the topic but one other negative thing that caught my eye was it was missing a lot of citations. I wanted to read through this article to see what information it gave and if it overall seemed credible. The article also began with some visual analysis which made it interesting at first glance to want to read through.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

Article #1: I believe the lead in the introductory sentence does provide a clear and concise introduction to the topic. The lead describes some statistics about the article and cover's how hunger is addressed and the data surrounding it. It doesn't necessarily say what the major article sections are but it does allude to them. No it doesn't it is more of an overview of what the article will be going into. I believe it is concise because it explains a little bit about the topic but does not go in depth about the article to the degree the rest of the sections should.

Article #2: The lead section to include an introductory sentence that was concise and described what the topic was. It gave what the definition of SNAP was and discussed briefly the basis of SNAP. It does not include information that was not in the article, it includes some statistics that will be mentioned later in the history of SNAP and how it came to evolve throughout. The lead is not overall detailed and briefly goes over what the article will be talking about.

Content:

Article #1: The article's content is relevant it covers topics such as it cover's things like health consequences, causes, fighting hunger as what can we do to create food justice and how gender and race can influence hunger and food insecurity. The content seems more or less up to date as it has references from 2011 and on hitting topics such as covid that happened in 2020 and that impact. The article seems to cover all spans of what could be covered through food insecurity but at the end it covers the history of food and I felt that section could be a little less extensive or put at the top of the article instead of at the end. The article does cover equity gaps as it covers which groups of individuals may be experiencing large food insecurity or hunger due to their age, race, gender,etc.

Article #2: The content seems relatively up to date, peering through the sources they range but have some dated from 2015-2023. I think that there is some content missing and the poverty section regarding SNAP needs to be larger and addressed further. I feel like the article did a good job of addressing the history and workup to the EBT card. I think also that the articles subheadings could be further evaluated and organized. I don't think that the article deals with the equity gaps and I don't think again it has a large enough section speaking about poverty and through that does not address which groups are suffering and utilizing EBT more than others and why and what solution could be through EBT to aid that.

Tone and Balance:

Article #1: The article overall is neutral I felt reading through it that it contained a lot of informational statistics. I don't necessarily think there are any biased but I do think that in the health sections it was focused on children and I think there should have been more detail about mothers, individuals themselves and older citizens as well. I think that there could have been a larger detail about gender and the affect food insecurity has on that's because it was only speaking about single female households and not talking about possibly single fathers or non family oriented individuals. The representations of the minority groups are statistics based so I do feel that information is represented well. This article at the end is pretty heavy on the historical background and I feel that some of it is not really needed in the article and it weighs a little heavy but I don't think it holds any persuasion.

Article #2: The article does seem neutral, as it is just listing facts about EBT and multitudes of numbers and statistics. In the politics section, it only mentions a quote regarding democrats but doesn't say much analysis or other information regarding it or any other viewpoints which makes it seems slightly biased. I also thought it was a little strange including a crime section within this article, I felt it didn't need to be there and didn't offer any extra information that was beneficial. I don't think the article is trying to persuade any specific views. There was a large section about fraud which contained a lot of information compared to other section and along with the aded crime section it seems that there could be a leaning to want to explain the negatives snap provides.

Sources and References:

Article #1: The facts in the article are in fact backed up by secondary reliable sources and information based on the relevance of what is being said. The sources are thorough, I had clicked on some and found they came from newspapers or web browsers like J-store. The sources look like they are coming from 2010 on from what I have gathered and soan all the way to 2023, I feel they are extensive and cover a lot of information. There are some areas of the article that are not backed by evidence and that is a red flag. From the sources listed they seem to be written by a diverse set of others, there are over a 100 sources listed which gives rise to several different. I think the sources that have been chosen are from a wide variety as there are some scientific articles as well as some reviewed articles. The links indeed work.

Article #2: Not all of the facts in the article are backed up by credible sources. This is something that I noticed on my first glance of the article. I feel this takes away a lot of the credibility of the article. The sources that are listed are relevant but one dates back to around 1973 which felt much too old to be using at this time. There is also one from 1961 which seems like it provides no utilization to the article. The sources are pulled from different websites and browsers. The links to the articles do work and do contain a spectrum of authors and different types of articles. I think the article that were pre 2011 should be replaced with new articles and ones that are peer reviewed. Also, in the talk section there was a mention how the history section was pulled directly from one fo the sources and that needs to be fixed.

Organization and Writing Quality

Article #1: the article is written well i would say, it is very organized in thought. It is laid out in a way where there are subheadings that tell you about what will be talked about in that section. The article from the reads I did did not have any spelling or grammatical errors. The sections reflect major points and get the point across of the article.

Article #2: The article I wouldn't say is well written but it is clear and a fine read. The article does not from the looks of it have any grammatical errors or spelling errors. The article was organized but again not to the best of its ability. I think certain sections don't need to be there and there needs to be more headings and subheadings that lead into the information stated in the article better.

Images and Media

Article #1: The article does include images and I think that they provide good extra context to the story that is being told in the article. The images are captioned well and adhere to the copyright regulations. The images are put in a organized fashion within each section adding something rather than distracting from the text.

Article #2: I do think that the images in the article were useful and enhanced the article. I really liked that they included what the food stamps looked like at the beginning. The images throughout are captioned well. I feel that they all add a little extra to the text and enhance what SNAP does and how it works within the population. I do believe the images adhere to the copyright regulations. I think that the images could be laid out a little better in formatting and included more dispurstly throughout the text.

Talk Page disscussion

Article #1:

The conversations going on behind the scenes are about representing hunger more within this article and balancing it out more with how much food insecurity is spoken about. The article is rated C class and is apart of Wikipedia projects. It differs because it is more factual rather than having a set side chosen to it. I think the history section at the end is too long and does not need to be there in that full depth because I think it pulls focus.

Article #2: The conversations that were going on in the talk page were explaining how Nixon should have been mentioned in the article and that there are articles missing in the sources. The page also mentions how the history section is verbatim from another source which is definitely not good. The article was rated B class and of low importance and is following some wikiprojects. We haven't really talked about SNAP in class aside from my mention about it due to my PE.

Overall impressions

Article #1: The articles overall status is mid to high importance in topics about the united states, hunger and food insecurity. The article has strength in providing the base for what this issue is and why it is so prevalent and where but it can go into more detail about maybe the causes or the why. The article can maybe talk about SNAP and other resources along with cutting as I have said before the history section of this article. I think the article has room to grow and could provide more to the reader. Food insecurity and hunger are very prevalent topics and have a lot of backbone to them and there is always room for growth when discussing this.

Article #2: The articles overall status is not the great. I think it does mention a wide variety of facts about SNAP but there is plagiarism and is missing key components and needs better organization. The article could be improved through better workings of the information and the presentation of it. I think the article is underdeveloped and needs improvement for sure.