User:Possible Maria/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
FedEx Express

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because FedEx delivery is used on a daily basis and I have never checked anything about it. Also, going through the topics, the name "FedEx" sounded familiar. My first impression was good. There are pictures and proper introduction with many references to other wiki pages. However going through the article, the good image fluctuated and after seeing the talk page, I would say the article is okay.

Lead section

 * Informative introductory sentence - even stating a small informative sentence on top of the introduction to avoid confusion with another association name
 * The introduction gives a lot of details in the second half. Whereas the description of major sections is missing.
 * The overall information is relatively up to date (year 2020)

Content

 * the content is relevant to the topic. However it has a huge section of history whereas the other sections are rather smaller.
 * Some sections explanations end in year 2016. Though, it is also talked about future plans reaching until 2030.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is written neutrally
 * While explaining the history, the pronoun 'he' was used which gave the impression of too much personal writing (e.g. "He argued that [...] ")

Sources and References

 * most of the sources are secondary. Some are press releases and FedEx official website which might be categorized as non-secondary sources.
 * The sources go until 2019 which is quite up to date. All sources are mostly from different authors.
 * Some of the links don't work or the site doesn't exist anymore.
 * Mostly, better sources are not available since there are no academic papers which help to write about FedEx.

Organization and writing quality

 * The writing style is easy to read. The structure of the sentences tend to be similar. For instance, most of the paragraphs start with "In [year], ..." which sounds repetitive. However, for the history timeline it is easier to understand which year the paragraph will describe.
 * No major or apparent grammatical or spelling errors are found.
 * Overall, the structure of the article is organized.

Images and Media

 * There are a lot of images which are relevant for the topic. By showing different models of aircrafts, the reader can get a better image of the evolution and development.
 * Some citations are still needed. So far, the content is summarized but here and there, some citations are missing.
 * For descriptive purposes, tables are also added which summarize the written content (year and which development was made) which are quite appealing.
 * The overall layout is good.

Talk page discussion

 * Some comments are not signed
 * Some edits were changed back to the original (which was apparently wrong information) without explanation or discussion.
 * Some comments are useless and unprofessional such as " FedExExExExExExExExExExExEx Express Express"
 * it's a C-class article

Overall impressions

 * Each section in the article have a good amount of information - especially the introduction.
 * The article seems quite complete with enough sections.
 * Looking at the talk page, it seems that some informations are wrong but haven't been taken care of.
 * Overall it is a good page but can be improved a lot.
 * The last proper edit/comment was in 2021

""