User:Rockinslick/Evaluate an Article

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

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because the headquarters is fairly close to where I live. The Center for the Development of Recycling is important because they strive help others in recycling/reusing to create a more green world. My preliminary expression towards this article was positive. Organizations similar to this one will help push our world into a more sustainable state.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:


 * There is a good introductory sentences that introduces what the article is about.
 * It includes the major sections/content.
 * No.
 * The lead is concise.

Content:


 * Content is relevant.
 * Content is up-to-date.
 * It does not seem like there is anything missing/does not belong.
 * It addresses equity gaps. The article discusses how the organization tries to enlighten others about recycling and its benefits.

Tone and Balance:


 * Article is neutral.
 * No biases.
 * There are some viewpoints that are underrepresented
 * These view are described but could use improvements in the article.
 * The article persuades readers to recycle due to its green benefits.

Sources and References:


 * All facts are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Sources are not very thorough.
 * Sources are not current.
 * There is a diverse spectrum of authors. Whether or not the authors come from marginalized groups is unclear.
 * There aren't better sources available.
 * N/A

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * It is concise and clear to read. Well written.
 * I do not believe that there are any spelling/grammatical errors.
 * It is well-organized and split up into various sections of importance.

Images and Media:


 * Not really. There should be more images of the organization at work. A singular logo does not provide viewers/audience with the proper visuals.
 * Images are not captioned.
 * Image adheres to copyright regulations.
 * Images are visually appealing.

Talk page discussion:


 * There aren't very many conversations and they are not active/current. The conversations just involve users asking for feedback about edits.
 * It has a low rating (C-class). It is a part of Wikiproject California and Wikiproject Sanitation.
 * It differs because this topic does not have a wide range of resources that we would normally see when editing/analyzing. In class, we have discussed how topics similar to this have more resourceful information.

Overall impression:


 * The article is informative but could provide users with more background information.
 * It provides a consice analysis about the organization. It provides viewers with the organization's contact information as well as information about where they operate/who they are.
 * Providing more information about the history of the organization.
 * I believe the article is well-developed.