User:Ellsbells1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
4-H

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I grew up in 4-H, and it had a large impact on my growing up. Through participation and leadership in 4-H, my communication skills greatly improved. They even have projects about public speaking, writing, and leadership. My initial impression of the article was that it was well composed, and thorough.

Evaluate the article
The lead section contains a good general summary of the organization as a whole. The introductory sentence is to the point, and easy to understand. An ode to some of the major sections was noted, however they do bring up 4-H Canada in the introduction without adding it as a topic or mentioning it later. In fact, there isn't even a Wikipedia page for 4-H Canada. Additionally, the reference to 4-H Canada is broken.

As far as content goes, the article is fairly well balanced. However, there is a significant amount of information n the history of 4-H and fairly little on the programs they actually have. Specifically, regarding livestock and agriculture, there is almost no information. In the future, more work should be done to add this. The content that is there is decently up to date, especially considering how old the organization is. Since one of 4-H's biggest outreach programs is to lower-income youth, they as an organization are filling a content gap per say, but I think the article could use some more work in that department. They could even add a whole section about the target communities of 4-H. There is also a controversies section, which seems to do a good job going over issues the organization has had with offensive language/actions surrounding indigenous populations.

Overall, this article is written in a fairly neutral tone. The viewpoint of this article may be slightly skewed towards the perspective of the founders of 4-H, since the history section of this page is so heavily represented. This article doesn't seem to try to skew the reader in any particular direction.

This article does a decent job at citing sources. Nearly every paragraph has at least 2 sources cited. Most of the sources are also fairly recent publications (2012 or after). Most of the sources are reputable, but after doing research it is admittedly hard to find scholarly work to cite on this topic. Many of the sources are from 4-H publications, which is not ideal, but nearly unavoidable. There are some diverse authors cited, but there should definitely be more work done here. Most of the links work, but there are a few that are outdated/go to pages that are broken.

The article is well written, however the section breakdown is somewhat strange to me. There needs to be more written about nearly every section besides history. The images and media are well laid out and captioned. As far as I can tell they follow the copyright laws.

The talk page is pretty bleak, but the article was rated "B-Class and of Mid-importance". Overall, this article is reasonably well don't with room for improvement. It would be great if they could add a section on their target audience and work they do with underserved populations. It would also be improved if they added more information about specific project fields (rabbits, poultry, beef, swine, communication, etc). More attention also needs to go into the intro section to take out sentences that aren't relevant or referenced properly.