User:Sawadoky/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office - Wikipedia

Why have you chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because there has been a lot of claims lately about humans not being the only species on this planet and the government had just recently announced on live tv that they have found non-biologically humans in custody and that made me curious. it matters to me because I thought we were the only species on earth, and i always wonder, If aliens are real why are they not on earth trying to bond with us humans. My preliminary impression of this article was " what else are they hiding."

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:

Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.

Yes, the lead includes a brief description of the article's major sections.

No, all information on the lead is found in the article.

The Lead is overly detailed.

content

The article content is relevant to the topic.

No, the content is not up to date,

The recent UFO findings and the government confirming the existence of non-human beings is missing from the article.

Yes, the article deals with some equity gaps, and it doesn't address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and balance

Yes the article is neutral

There are no biased claims.

The viewpoints are underrepresented.

Yes minority viewpoints are accurately described as such.

The article doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another, it's just neutral.

Sources and References

Yes, all facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source.

Yes, the sources are thorough and reflect the available literature on the topic.

Some of the sources are current.

Yes, the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and they include historically marginalized individuals.

Yes, there are better sources available.

Yes, the links work.

Organization and writing quality.

Yes, the article is well written

There are no grammatical or spelling errors

Yes, the article is organized it's broken down into sections

Images and Media

Not really, the article only contains one image and two videos

The one image is well captioned

The one image adheres to Wikipedia's copyright regulations

The one image is laid out in a visually appealing way

Talk page discussion

I'm pretty sure conversations like staying neutral, not saying too much and trying not to scare the populations are going on behind the scenes.

The article is rated as "start" I don't think it's part of Wiki Projects

Wikipedia is neutral about this topic and it's like it's not a major problem even though it's the discovery of a whole different species.

Overall impressions

The article's overall status is complete and published.

The article's strengths are the evidence, and staying neutral but it lacks pictures.

This article can be improved by making the content up to date, there's a lot of new information missing from it.

The article is well developed but I can add more new information and thoughts to it.