User:Thomasquinnild/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating Code for America.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article about the non-profit Code for America because the company has a large stake in the Civic Technology industry. According to its website, Code for America works to improve government technology services, and connect those services with constituents from historically underserved communities.

My initial impression of the article is that it is well written and comprehensive. The article includes boxes with information about the company's founding, a content index to efficiently navigate through the page, images, a table to illustrate a list of active brigades, and an extensive references section.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The article includes a concise introductory sentence that explains what the purpose and organizational status of Code for America is, and includes linked definitions for technical vocabulary.

Although the lead does not include a description of the article's major sections, an index table is displayed as an alternative.

The rest of the lead paragraph contains all of the salient information on the company without delving into extraneous information.

Content

Code for America includes seven major sections, with an even amount of content in each. However, two of the sections, Fellowship Program and Former Fellowship Projects, are very similar, so they could be cut down and merged into a single section.

The content also cites reputable newspapers as part of its Founding and History section, which adds to the article's credibility.

Tone and Balance

The tone and balance of the article is neutral, and the author(s) use outside, reputable sources to offer praise for the company, rather than using subjective language themselves. With that being said, the article does not offer critiques of the company, a problem for overall balance.

Sources and References

This articles makes extensive use of current, diverse references, with reputable sources such as the New York Times, and other government agency websites. The references section of the article is also very well organized, with an external links section also included for further reading.

Organization and Writing Quality

Both the article's organization and writing quality were excellent, with no visible spelling or grammatical errors and concisely written sections.

(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.)

Talk Page

Although Code for America's talk page has been used to critique citations and general writing style, there were only two entries into this article. This could be a positive reflection of the article's initial author, and/or a negative reflection on the peer review of the work. Overall, the critiques were taken into consideration and the improvements made.