User:CheyenneGreen/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Procter & Gamble

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen "Proctor & Gamble" to evaluate because Proctor & Gamble is a popular company, based out of Cincinnati, Ohio, where I'm from, which I would like to learn more about. Also, I am majoring in Pre-Business Administration at the University of Cincinnati Blue Ash, and the article may help me further explore my major because it is a large manufacturing company. Proctor & Gamble matters to me because the company produces many goods like hair-care products, toothbrushes, toothpaste, air fresheners, and many other products that I use on a daily basis. My initial impression of the Wikipedia page was that there were over one hundred sources already cited, and the page appeared well-developed.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence in the lead section of the "Proctor & Gamble" Wikipedia article defines the company, but does not clearly provide the article's topic. Although the article's major sections are not provided in the introductory sentence, the lead section does briefly describe the sections in the article. I have not found any information in the lead section that is not provided in the article. Although there is a decent amount of information provided in the lead section, it does clearly state what is going to be in the article, so the lead section is concise.

The "Proctor & Gamble" Wikipedia article's content is all relevant to the topic of the company Proctor & Gamble. The content is up-to-date in the article because it has been edited numerous amounts of times within this year, 2023. There are many sections in this article, which leads me to believe there is no missing content. Also, every section relates to the topic "Proctor & Gamble" so there is no content that doesn't belong. Although the article addresses many controversial topics that the company has been faced with, there is very little information on the topic of corporate diversity and the CEO-to-worker pay ratio. The topics covering corporate diversity and the CEO-to-worker pay ratio are underrepresented, which leads me to believe that the article is facing one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The Wikipedia article "Proctor & Gamble" provides ten, un-biased examples of controversies that the company has faced, so it is neutral. There have been no claims, that I have read, that seem heavily biased to one particular position. The topics of corporate diversity and the CEO-to-worker pay ratio are underrepresented in multiple viewpoints. The information on the topics of the Proctor & Gamble Wikipedia page consists mainly of facts, so there are no minority or fringe viewpoints. When reading the Wikipedia article "Proctor & Gamble", there are no persuasions attempting to get the reader to favor in one way, because the information is given in facts.

The "Proctor & Gamble" Wikipedia article does contain some sentences, claiming facts, that are not backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The sources cited in the article do reflect the information available on the topic. In the Wikipedia article "Proctor & Gamble", there are multiple sources dating back to 2012, so not all resources are current although, the article does contain some resources from this year, 2023, so a few sources are current. The sources in the article come from a variety of different authors, containing a large range of ages. The article includes sources that address the history of the company, along with the history of individuals who built the company. The sources available in the article come from reliable articles, although peer-reviewed articles could be a better replacement for a few random websites. In the article "Proctor & Gamble" on Wikipedia, the sources' links work correctly.

"Proctor & Gamble" is a well-written article because of its concise facts and sentences included in the paragraphs, and its clearly stated headings and subheadings. The article also includes professional words, which makes it easy to read. There have been no grammatical or spelling errors found in the article. The article is very organized, including many sections, that all relate to the article topic, "Proctor & Gamble".

The article "Proctor & Gamble" includes a few images that show the company's logo and headquarters, but those images don't further the readers' understanding of the company. The images in the article have a well-caption that clearly explains the image, including dates and location. The images don't contain any Wikipedia copyright regulation complaints. The article only contains three images, with two of them located next to each other, in the lead section, which is not visually appealing. The article "Proctor & Gamble" should contain more images to appear more visually appealing.

In the article "Proctor & Gamble", the talk page contains discussions about P&G's logo being satanic, the need for the pay ratio to be added to the info box, and that there is no mention of the brands owned by the company. The "Proctor & Gamble" Wikipedia article has been rated as C-class. The article is a part of four WikiProjects including, United States, Companies, Home Living, and Brands. In class, we discussed this topic as an article with very little room for editing, but Wikipedia revealed to me that the topic is rated as a C-class, and still has improvement to be done.

Overall, the "Proctor & Gamble" article is well-written and there is only a small amount of improvement that needs to be done. The article's strengths include its clear headings and subheadings, reliable sources, and its relevant content. The article's underrepresented topics, on corporate diversity and CEO-to-worker pay ratio, could be improved by adding more information and sources to the sections.