User:Jiyoonwon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EB%B9%84%EB%B9%84%EA%B3%A0

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.)

The topic of my Wikipedia project is about Bibigo, a global South Korean cuisine brand. It is the affiliated company specifically for food included in the CJ group, a South Korean conglomerate. I chose this topic since the food and meal kits from Bibigo made me feel like eating actual home-made Korean foods after moving to Boston whenever I missed Korean tastes. Through my first year experience of studying abroad, I felt that food is one of the biggest parts that arouse homesickness. I get to feel a deeper attachment to Korean food than when I was in Korea. Also, I found out Bibigo foods were quite commonly bought and eaten by Western people. Through this factor, I felt that food is one of the important means connecting the totally different two cultures. When I first saw the article, I felt that there was no detailed information of the brand relative to its popularity and influence in global food markets.

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.)

Existing Korean Wikipedia page lacks information about Bibigo as a “food brand.” Bibigo is the name of the Korean food (mostly meal kit) enterprise, but also it is the name of the Bibimbap restaurant that CJ group was planning to launch in diverse regions over the globe. Wikipedia already has the information about the Bibimbap restaurant, Bibigo, but it does not contain the information about the Korean cuisine brand, Bibigo.


 * 1) Lead section: The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article’s topic. It does not include a brief description of the article’s major sections. It does not include information that is not present in the article. It is concise.
 * 2) Content: The article’s content is relevant to the topic. The content is up-to-date. There is a lot of missing content.
 * 3) Tone and Balance: The article is neural. There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented. There are no minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such. And the article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.
 * 4) Sources and References: All facts in the article backed up are by a reliable secondary source of information and are all thorough. The sources are current. But they are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. There are more reliable sources available which can be added to the page. Existing links work.
 * 5) Organization and writing quality: The article is well-written and has no grammatical or spelling errors. But it is not well-organized. There are no sections dividing the contents and the overall article is too short.
 * 6) Talk page discussion: There are no conversations or rates about the article.
 * 7) Overall impressions: The overall impression of the article is that there is not enough information to understand the topic (Bibigo brand). It is underdeveloped. The article’s strength is conciseness and reliable source. The article could be improved with more information from diverse sources and more detailed information of the Bibigo brand such as brand history, philosophy, or explanations of products.