User:Sltiger/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nike, Inc.

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

I choose this article because Nike is a popular brand. I have many clothing items and shoes that are from Nike. It is a big company that many people buy from, their approach to combating climate change should be taken seriously. They are also impacted by climate change and I want to know how specifically

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.)

The lead section describes the company very well. It talks about the company history and other import things like the different brands under the company umbrella. It mentions some of the different major sections that follow but not all of them. The content of the page is relevant to the page and company. The writers don't include anything that is unnecessary. All of the content that is written on the page is up-to-date. The tone of the article is very neutral, none of the information seems to sway one or another. It doesn't try to make the reader think something about the company. In the controversies section the tone is still very neutral only stating the facts. The facts of the article are all backed up by another source and they are current. I checked some of the sources and they all work. To me, the article was very clear in the information it was giving, there were no super obvious grammatical mistakes in the article, and the sections were very organized and it made sense where everything was. Towards the end there were some pictures but there were none throughout the rest of the article. It felt a little chaotic with how they were laid out because they were all in one area. The photos were all captioned nicely. The talk page mostly has people creating grammar mistakes other people made. It also has corrections for any misinformation in the actual article. I think that the article is in good shape. There is a lot of information to it and none of it seemed unnecessary. The article had a lot on the history of the company and on who they have worked with. I believe that there are some sections that could be improved upon such as the environmental impact section.