User:Ja00brien/sandbox

Article evaluation:

I chose the Wikipedia page of Live For Now, the Pepsi ad featuring Kendall Jenner and many viewed as a PR disaster.

Like many wikipedia readers, I most likely browse the description first and then head to the section I came to look for. As I do this, I notice the description is the only detailed part of the wiki page. For the most part, it only describes the ad in detail. Everything seems focused on the content of the ad and sticks to that topic. There is only one other section which is "reaction" other than "references" and "see also." The description seems very neutral, and the reaction tells of responses in a matter-of-fact way. The viewpoints of people who criticized the ad are present, but really do not give another side to the argument. The links in the references work, but they are a lot of opinion pieces. I would have a hard time finding "creditable sources" for a situation like this. A New York times article is cited, and that is probably the most reliable source they have in the references. There are also a few references that seem unreliable such as YouTube parody videos, but it makes sense to have them included. The "talk" section does not have a lot going on in it. It's rated start-class and low importance. It is not a part of any wikiprojects.

Here is the link to the page:

Live for Now (Pepsi)

Two non-profit choices:

-Heartland Alliance (we are all in agreement over this one)

-Career transition for dancers