User:LandShark71/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as I felt it related to the class topic well and it is an association I am not familiar with. My first impression of this article includes that the article is in an early stage of development and it is quite short. This article matters because it details an important organization for the profession of FCS and allows professionals in this field to network.

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.)

The lead section of the article provides a good basic summary of the American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences. The lead section fails to address the other topics in the article, this may be due to the article being quite short in length and many of the topics discussed being single sentences. The content of the article is relevant to the topic. The article is fairly up-to-date as it uses a source from 2021 along with other sources that are older. The article mentions historically underrepresented populations when discussing African American home economics leaders. The tone of the article is neutral and does not try to persuade the reader to think from a certain perspective. The article includes a balance of older and newer sources. There were three sources that came from the same journal which weakens the article's credibility. The links within the sources worked as expected. The article is concise and straight to the point there were no grammatical errors that I found. The article included no media or images. There were no discussions on the talk page and is rated a c-class article. The article was rated as a low-importance article. The article was easy to read yet I feel there could be further research added on this topic as the article was quite short. The article was underdeveloped.