User:Bananannah02/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am a big fan of Walmart, I've always enjoyed going there and loved their everyday low prices concept so I wanted to learn more about the background of that.

Evaluate the article
Entire Article Write-up

Starting off with the Lead section of Walmart’s Wikipedia site, I’ve noticed that the introductory sentence is straight to the point, clear and concise. As the lead section delves deeper into the overview of Walmart, there are clear connections to the introductory sentence in comparison to the rest of the lead section. The lead includes very brief but still insightful descriptions on the entire article, not including anything that isn’t in the rest of the page. Overall, the lead is a bit overly detailed, but I think this is good, seeing as those who want more of a detailed description/layout of Walmart can easily get that. The content of the article consists of a variety of different topics that have to do with Walmart. It includes topics discussing its history and how it was able to expand so widely, its competitors, initiations, ways of designing and coordinating, its locations and the challenges, operational divisions, differences in locations/names, setbacks/challenges, its impact on globally and through eCommerce, and the list can go on. The content is indeed up to date, including information from recent years up to the present year. The article doesn’t mention anything in relation to Wikipedia’s equity gap nor does it specifically refer to the historically underrepresented populations or topics but seems to go into the locations that are poorer or underrepresented. As for any content and information that is unnecessary would’ve been the separate paragraphs about the different Walmarts in the different countries, as much as it could be nice additional information, it doesn’t seem very useful (to me). This article does seem very neutral overall because it is only stating the facts that are available to Walmart’s corporation. There isn’t anything that shows that there are any sides that they are leaning more toward in terms of liking and disliking Walmart. There are clear indications that show that they are being completely transparent about the upsides and downsides of Walmart’s corporation. It seems. As though there is a balance of ups and down, although they are separated in sections of different topics, meaning in one of the points, they will discuss only the downsides of that and not really the upside with it, its and either/or type of situation. In those specific paragraphs that talk more negatively about a certain topic of choice, the article kind of seems to be persuading the reader more toward the negative side. Every paragraph includes the sources used, and there are usually a few different sources being used in each paragraph. They are indeed backed up by reliable sources of information, easily reflecting the literature on the topics. Different facts and information are based on findings that use sources from colleges (trusting and bigger universities, economic inquiry journals, global institute studies, etc. The sources date back to the 1970s but do not have tons of sources coming from the late 1900s generally. Most of the sources are coming from the past 20 years, from the 20th century. When looking through the sources and where they got them from, it doesn’t seem like a lot of the sources were from marginalized or diverse individuals or authors. I think this is because the information given didn’t really need to have those specificities. After looking through the article, to my liking and based on the categories that should be mentioned at the times that they were, were at pretty good times of mention. The writing was professional, not mentioning anything that seemed to be outside of what was mentioned or talked about. The article is very well-written, with very concise and clear vocabulary that is easily understood. The article doesn’t seem to have any grammatical or spelling errors either. As mentioned before, the article has mentioned the different topics at good times, all being coherent with each other. The article contains images that do enhance the topics and the understanding of them because they correlate to what the paragraphs are talking about. They include images such as a few different locations of Walmart, sizes and types of Walmart in different locations, people representing Walmart, the logo progression, the ways that Walmart contributes to global climate change, explaining all of the pics well and clearly. Overall, the status of the article was in great standing. The article’s strengths were on contributing enough of the different topics and going through with a good amount of depth about each of the sections as well. The different sections represented different topics of understanding the corporation and all that it has to offer, going from all of the different types of Walmart and its locations to its environmental impact on the Earth, operating workings, social effect, as well as its growth and development. There are many topics to explore in this one article which I feel like is super helpful and convenient if someone is looking to understand or just go in-depth with the corporation. In the ways of improvement and as I mentioned before, there were lots of mentions and sections dedicated to the different locations of Walmart and yes, as there is a lot of different information to indulge in, I don’t think dedicated that much to it was necessary. A quick, few mentions of the different areas and places and condensing it into a couple of paragraphs, I believe would’ve sufficed.