User:Savsleev/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
United States Forest Service

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because there are government publications and research articles that demonstrate racial inequities in National Forest attendance. In 2017, the Obama administration published a memorandum addressed to the USFS and others to draw attention to this national phenomenon. Information of this kind is not currently present in the article.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section gives a concise, accurate description of the organization's function. Some of the article's major sections are referenced in the lead section, such as "Major Divisions." There is no information in the lead that is irrelevant to the rest of the article.

Content: The current content is all relevant to the main topic. For instance, the history, activities and budget are some of the aspects of the USFS covered in the article. While sections like "Budget" are up to date, "Fighting Fires" does not include information about the Native American influence on the USFS's modern fire reduction methods.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral and avoids a persuasive tone. It also shows no signs that the author(s) is attempting to persuade readers in one direction or another. As aforementioned in the "content" section of this evaluation, as well as the "Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?" section, the role/experiences of Black and Indigenous people are not represented in this article as much as they could be.

Sources and References: The sources seem to be reliable and plentiful, though some of them are over 10 years old, including sources discussing the impact of wildfires on U.S. lands, which may mean the full scope of the issue today is not thoroughly represented. The links work, however, paywalls on some of the sources may prevent other editors on Wikipedia from efficiently fact-checking.

Organization and Writing Quality: The writing is clear and free of errors. While some sections could be added, the sections that the article does have are helpful for readers looking for a broad, yet general understanding of the topic.

Images and Media: The images are a good mixture of maps, logos, pop culture images and images of the Forest Service working on-location. All photos are placed in their related section and contain descriptive captions, some of which are sourced.

Talk Page Discussion: The article is part of 4 different — all B-rated — WikiProjects. The talk page contained some disagreement about what the article should be named, though that was resolved in 2009. There are suggestions to include a section on Forest Service volunteering and a section on the USFS's response to hippies living in forests (Rainbow Gathering).

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article about this commonly-known topic is strong. It provides detailed, easy-to-read content and thorough descriptions of the USFS's budget, history, functions and operating locations. However, it could benefit from some updated sources and a broader, more diverse array of perspectives, perhaps in a new section.