User:Lifelonglearnerlifelong/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Girls Who Code

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the article discussing Girls Who Code because I had always heard of this organization, but am curious to know more about it. When opening the article I received a message that it is written too much like an advertisement, so I am also curious to explore this aspect. My instructions to take out promotional content, remove inappropriate external links, and add neutral encyclopedic content was clear. Upon first glance, I can understand how this article may contain content that is viewed as promotional. Though, it appears there is not a blatantly obvious portion that needs immediate fixing.

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.)

Lead Section:

The introduction sentence is concise and clearly describes the article's topic. It provides a breif overview of where this organization is available. The lead only includes information present in the article. The lead is very concise - I would argue almost too concise. It could be nice to have a sentence on the knowledge that Girls Who Code offers.

Content:

The article's content is relevant to the topic, as it details the motivation behind starting this organization, the history of its origins, the programs it offers, relevant partnerships and campaigns, and plans to expand. The last section detailing an isolated incident of controversy surrounding four books from the Girls Who Code series seems a bit underdeveloped and out of place. Up-to-date information regarding the status of the book-ban and bold claims made by The Moms for Liberty co-founder, Tina Descovich. The article successfully addresses the historical underrepresentation of women in computer science.

Tone & Balance:

The article is flagged as containing promotional content, which indicates there is language that is not neutral. An example of a claim that appears to be biased toward the organization includes a statement under the "history" portion of this article. The sentence implies Girls Who Code is responsible for the success of the 80,000 college-aged alums who have entered the work force. Generally speaking, the article attributes much of the success of coding women to their participation in Girls Who Code, which comes across as promotional content.

Sources & References:

References are provided, when necessary, and come from a variety of sources. Upon checking several of the attached sources, the links are fairly current and work. Most sources appear to come from magazines and journals.

Organization & Writing Quality:

The article uses language that is easily understandable and concise. The writing is informative, yet approachable for a number of different education levels. I did not come across blatantly obvious spelling or grammatical errors. The article is well organized and laid out with the following sections: summary, history, programs, partnerships, campaigns, international expansion, and controversy.

Images & Media:

Images on this article are minimal, as there is only one picture showing the organization's logo. This image is well-located at the beginning of the article and does not detract the readers attention. It seems wise to not include other images throughout the article, as this does not feel necessary.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page includes discourse regarding updates to the image displaying the organization's logo. Others also proposed updates to the partnership section. It's interesting to note that an employee for Girls Who Code is requesting most of these changes/updates. This employee acknowledges that in order to abide by Wikipedia guidelines they should not add these updates themself. Instead, they asks for others to make these changes.

Overall Impressions:

Comprehensively, the status of this article appears to be doing well. Strengths of this article include its clear organization, reference to viable sources, use of clear language, and informative content. Areas to improve include the removal of promotional content and addition of neutral language. The article is well-developed, but more attention could be payed to the last section titled "controversy."