User:Fazwaz08/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gummy bear

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose it because I asked my friends to give me a random subject to look up on wikipedia and one of them said Gummy bears. It matters because this is a beloved candy that is a staple in children's lives worldwide, as far as popular candy goes. It is considered bizarre for someone to have not tried gummy bears before. Based on a preliminary look at the article, it has a good starting point for a informational page, although it is clearly missing some citations and needs some fleshing out.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

 Lead section

The first sentence of the article is not a bad first explanation of the topic, as it explains what the gummy bear is and where its name comes from. However, it does not summarize the main points of the article, mainly the health issues, the ingredients (which mentions only gelatin), and flavours. That being said, it does not contain any information that is not present in the body of the article. The lead is not very concise, but it is also not very detailed, it could certainly be longer.

Content

The content is all relevant to the topic of Gummy bears. As far as I can tell most of the information could use some updating, as most of the sources are dated to the early 2010's. That being said, there is most likely a limited amount of information on this specific topic. The article tackles most of what is needed, however the addition of storage guidelines for gummy bears might be beneficial. The article does not deal with the Wikipedia equity gaps and does not talk about any historically underrepresented groups or topics, considering this is about candy.

Tone and Balance

The article appears to be neutral and does not attempt to persuade the reader to any position about the topic through biased language, however the choice of some of the information without proper citations may be considered baises without verification. There are no viewpoints that are over or under-represented and the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or another.

Sources and References

Not all the facts are backed up by secondary sources, where some information lacks citation completely and some citations no longer work. Some of the sources are thorough by using reputable sources like the WHO, the FDA, etc. The sources used in the article are not too old, but many of the source links are no longer active pages, therefore they need updating. Since many of the sources are outdated, not many of the authors are available, therefore there is no visible diversity in the authors of the sources. After just one search on google scholar and omni of finding academic articles on gummy bears, I found several articles containing information about the ingredients and other uses for gummy bears, therefore there is clearly more recent and more reputable information that can be used to backup information in this article.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is pretty well-written and does not contain any noticeable errors. It is simple to understand and read. It is well-organized and has a few subsections that effectively make the content easier to understand and digest. These subsections clearly describe the main points of the article in a concise way.

Images and Media

Since this is a short article, there are few images, but the images themselves are helpful in enhancing the quality of the article and helps to visually explains certain points made in the text. All images are well captioned, except for one that could have used more context. All images adhere to the copyright rules of Wikipedia.The images themselves are good, but they could have been placed in a more stylistic way.

Talk Page Discussion

This article is part of a WikiProject under food and drink and has received a C-Class rating on the quality scale and has rated of Low Importance on the importance scale. There have been many discussions on the Talk page about various topics in relation to the article. Some users have discussed missing information or have added information based on their own research or real-life experience with the food. Some discuss the flavouring throughout the world, since some countries have produced different variations of Gummy Bears. In all honesty, the discussions I've seen sound like what we've discussed in class about talk pages.

Overall Impressions

The overall status of this article is that it is semi-complete and functions well enough. The article's strengths lie in the organization and writing quality of the content. One of the biggest improvements this article should do is update their sources and add more. Other than that it should include more images and should be expanded more. In terms of completeness, I would say this article is incomplete and requires more work.