User:Jkamps2/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: ActBlue
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose to evaluate this article because ActBlue has been in the media recently because it is the preferred method of donation of the Biden campaign, as well as the amount of funds they raised following the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last Friday.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead does a fine job at describing the purpose of the topic of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It hints at some of the topics, but it doesn't have others and in some cases can definitely be expanded upon
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It talks about the software used, but has no mentions of what software is actually used in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly concise
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It talks about the software used, but has no mentions of what software is actually used in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly concise
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly concise
 * Overly concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the limited content published on the article pretains to the overall subject of ActBlue
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, it has recent content that is important to the topic (the donation record after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is specifically mentioned)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It mentions founders, however it does not state why the company was founded and there is very little background information into the earlier history of this nonprofit
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It talks about underrepresented causes that have been motivators to their donations (i.e the police killings of 2020)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It mentions founders, however it does not state why the company was founded and there is very little background information into the earlier history of this nonprofit
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It talks about underrepresented causes that have been motivators to their donations (i.e the police killings of 2020)
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It talks about underrepresented causes that have been motivators to their donations (i.e the police killings of 2020)
 * It talks about underrepresented causes that have been motivators to their donations (i.e the police killings of 2020)

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * In my eyes, I don't seen any inherent biases or other skewed data
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, they stick to the facts and numbers of ActBlue
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not in my opinion, I don't see any inherent bias in the article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say the article is quite factual, and not persuasive in the slightest.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not in my opinion, I don't see any inherent bias in the article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say the article is quite factual, and not persuasive in the slightest.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I would say the article is quite factual, and not persuasive in the slightest.
 * I would say the article is quite factual, and not persuasive in the slightest.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I would say so, they offer many sources of information that comes from reliable sources or from the mission statement of ActBlue itself
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources provide good context to the present facts, and I feel as if there is more data that can be taken from these sources and put into the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources pertaining to more recent information come from 2014 onwards.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I checked are in good working order, with no errors or anything that would make me second guess the sources or information
 * All sources pertaining to more recent information come from 2014 onwards.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I checked are in good working order, with no errors or anything that would make me second guess the sources or information
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links I checked are in good working order, with no errors or anything that would make me second guess the sources or information
 * The links I checked are in good working order, with no errors or anything that would make me second guess the sources or information
 * The links I checked are in good working order, with no errors or anything that would make me second guess the sources or information

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it offers a straight to the point and easy reading experience without any apparent errors
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There aren't any spelling errors, however there are some instances where you could split one sentence into two instead of using an ungodly amount of commas.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the sections it has, yes. However there needs to be some reorganization of topics and some topics need to be added
 * There aren't any spelling errors, however there are some instances where you could split one sentence into two instead of using an ungodly amount of commas.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * For the sections it has, yes. However there needs to be some reorganization of topics and some topics need to be added
 * For the sections it has, yes. However there needs to be some reorganization of topics and some topics need to be added
 * For the sections it has, yes. However there needs to be some reorganization of topics and some topics need to be added

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No, it has just one image of its founder
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * It is passible, however it is done incredibly basic and blandly.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it provides the creative commons license
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, it honestly feels pasted on without much thought
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, it provides the creative commons license
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, it honestly feels pasted on without much thought
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No, it honestly feels pasted on without much thought
 * No, it honestly feels pasted on without much thought

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are some concerns about citing how ActBlue takes certain service fees or their methods of fundraising
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated a C, and it doesn't appear to be in any WikiProjects umbrella that I have tried to look at
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It is rated a C, and it doesn't appear to be in any WikiProjects umbrella that I have tried to look at
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article was given a C, as well as deemed low importance
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It offers some info about the nonprofit, specifically donations and monetary records
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Looking more into its past and reason for existence could be an area of improvement
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it's developing well, but seeing as it is based on a political nonprofit, I could very easily see it becoming skewed if proper care and caution isn't exercised.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Looking more into its past and reason for existence could be an area of improvement
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it's developing well, but seeing as it is based on a political nonprofit, I could very easily see it becoming skewed if proper care and caution isn't exercised.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think it's developing well, but seeing as it is based on a political nonprofit, I could very easily see it becoming skewed if proper care and caution isn't exercised.
 * I think it's developing well, but seeing as it is based on a political nonprofit, I could very easily see it becoming skewed if proper care and caution isn't exercised.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: