User:Jayahpatell/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Habitat for Humanity

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 this article because I feel like having information on hand about important non profits is crucial to generating awareness and finding ways to get involved. My initial reaction of the article was that it was extremely thorough in explaining what the organization is and where you could find it.

Evaluate the article
Lead section

- Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes, I was fully informed on what the article was going to be about.

- Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Not necessarily or explicitly.

- Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

No

- Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Concise

Content

- Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes

- Is the content up-to-date?

Yes- last updated 4 months ago.

- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

No.

- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes- it deals with the vulnerable population of people who are not able to afford homes.

Tone and Balance

- Is the article neutral?

Yes.

- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

- Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

Yes, they are portrayed accurately.

- Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No, just gives the information.

Sources and References

- Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the article included a list of 44 sources.

- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes, the sources are accurate and revelant.

- Are the sources current?

Yes, most of them are from 2023.

- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the sources reflect the topic and are diverse.

- Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

The article covered a wide range and diverse content.

- Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization and writing quality

- Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it is well written and easy to read.

- Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.

- Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes, the article makes a lot of sense in how it's structured.

Images and Media

- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No.

- Are images well-captioned?

NA

- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

NA

- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

NA

Talk page discussion

- What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

Questions about HFH and questioning the program.

- How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

B-Class, Yes it's been nominated for Christianity and Organizations.

- How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

It's relevant to the way we've talked about it.

Overall impressions

- What is the article's overall status?

B-Class.

- What are the article's strengths?

It's thorough in explaining the history and affiliations.

- How can the article be improved?

It can include photos and videos to visualize the volunteer experience better.

- How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would say it's well-developed with the need for some additions.