User:MegStern/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Center for the Development of Recycling

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in environmental preservation and I wanted to see how certain groups are described on Wikipedia. This particular group is specific to the Bay Area region where I live. I also chose this article because it seemed like it was long enough to evaluate, while being short enough that it might have aspects to improve upon.

Evaluate the article
The lead section for the article is detailed but concise. However, it does not mention that the CDR is associated with San Jose State University until the third sentence. I think the section could have benefited from including that information in the first sentence. The content of the article seems up-to-date and is organized well into sections that relate directly to the organization, function, and responsibilities of the CDR. The article seems relatively neutral when reading it. The only time it feels biased is under the "Website" section when the author mentions that the website can answer essentially all recycling-related questions and does not cite a source for that statement. There are a few grammatical errors (including the use of an apostrophe when not needed) and some of the sentences are a bit overly complicated. Still, it is overall well-written and concise. There is only one image provided and it is the CDR's logo. The article could have benefited from some photos of people doing work, the workplace, and/or the website. In the talk page it seems like the two people who posted are both associated with the CDR, and were considering adding a "future goals" section so readers know their plans regarding Covid-19. There are several broken and archived links in the "References" section. It also looks like there are many official county websites cited but only one peer reviewed article. Overall, I think the article is somewhat well-developed with a few tweaks needed (including a grammar check, some added photos, some re-phrasing to eliminate clunky sentences and a bit of bias, and some added sources to replace the broken ones and to include more peer reviewed ones).