User:H3lpful4all779/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article 1: International non-governmental organization

Article 2: Humanitarian aid

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Both articles: These articles dive into the vast field of international humanitarian aid while presenting an opportunity to further discuss medical humanitarian aid, the focus of my practice experience and research to date. As this sector is globally-oriented, there isn't a specific "region" to explore. However, further viewing the types of organizations and the wide avenue of locations they work remains incredibly informative.

Evaluate the article
Article 1: The lead section is informative and concise. Its choice to go into specific detailed examples of INGOs in particular could have been better used further along in the article but was useful nonetheless. The history section is incredibly vague, especially for such an impactful topic that has been around for several decades. The article describes the primary general activities of these organization types as well as some criticisms of their shortcomings. Both of this help promote the article as balanced and containing information from multiple perspectives and sources. There are currently a couple of places in which other editors have requested additional or more detailed sourcing for certain claims made, but none have been outright disputed and there are a good amount of proper citations present. All links tested worked and went to the appropriate location. The (somewhat limited amount of) writing is well-written, even if certain examples contain more or less detail than is likely needed for that section. There is currently a lot of conversation regarding various elements of the article which appear to be discussed and improved upon. Overall, while the article could certainly use more detail, the content that is present appears to be (largely) factual in nature and is well-written.

Article 2: An incredibly well-detailed article that appears factual and with lots of citations. Citations tested worked and went to the appropriate location. The lead section not only provides a well-rounded overview of humanitarian aid but also briefly explains similar topics such as development aid and how humanitarian aid differs from these other topics. As such, not only does it explain, but it seeks to clarify the topic at hand which helps the reader to have a clear picture of what they are reading about. The content appears up to date and without any obvious bias. The information given comes across as objective and contains proper evidence to back up claims. The talks page contains several large conversations about how to classify various information and appears to have consensus on the majority of these topics. Two improvements would be expanding the types of humanitarian aid discussed and inserting a larger discussion on limitations of humanitarian aid in its present form (and if relevant/known in a factual manner, ways to address this).