User:Herre106/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Center for the Development of Recycling - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in organizations that focus on environmental work, especially the life cycle of human products (e.g. recycling).

The article was short and to the point but I felt it was lacking in specifics of its projects, for example specific works and a better timeline. It could have also included more information on impacts by this organization, if available. It seems like an effective article at giving the overview of the organization.

Evaluate the article
Lead section- By reading the first sentence I know it's an university-based environmental non-profit, which is the most important information. However the lead section doesn't really touch on the major article sections almost at all. It also touches on the impact on university students and their future careers/studies but doesn't in the rest of the article which it shouldn't.

Content- Most recycling centers and non-profits have a strong focus on empowering the community, especially communities that don't usually have access to these services as such this page may be lacking information on environmental justice and/or its work with underrepresented and underprivileged communities. In addition to that the history section could either expand to include a timeline of their work or it could become a section of its own, but this is important information that isn't in the article.

Tone and Balance- The article is very neutral, however it does not include information on public/government support or lack thereof.

Sources and References- In terms of sources, there were multiple references and a source for essentially each point made.

Organization and writing quality- The article is definitely concise and an easy read. The sections are clearly and logically separated.

Images and Media- Article contains only the logo of the non-profit which is placed in a logical part of the article but is not captioned, so I do not know if the logo is accurate to the organization today

Talk page discussion- it has a c-quality rating which is mediocre and not the best. In addition the talk page is limited but I agree with a commentor that the article should also have a future/ongoing projects section.

Overall Impression- overall this article was rated low-importance however I think the article was organized well and was easy to read and understand, it was also good that I as the reader can easily see the source of each point. I would argue that it lacks expansion and specificity in both the projects and history sections. Given that this non-profit only serves two counties, there probably isn't much work or information on them, so it's adequately developed for this stage, however there is definitely a lot that could be added to the page in the future.