User:VeronikaRoberts33/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
American Red Cross

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it a huge nonprofit organization that is located and supported across the nation. It is essential to current and future emergency assistance, disaster relief, and emergency preparedness education. This organization is important because it provides resources for individuals suffering across the nation. My preliminary impression of this article was it has a lot of information on it and is very descriptive. It displays all of their services and responses and their involvement with the armed forces.

"American Red Cross", Wikipedia, 2023-01-22, retrieved 2023-02-08

Evaluate the article
From the looks of this article, it seems very knowledgeable and full of information. Looking at the references, the most recent edit ranges from 2021 to 2011.

Lead Section: The lead section describing this organization is concise and descriptive of its actions and affiliates. The lead section does not include the articles major sections, however there is an outline on the side where you can easily navigate all sections of the article. The lead does not include information that is presented in the article, It is strictly just describing the organization and its affiliates. The lead is very concise.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic. It explains the history, services, responses, and international services. The content is mostly up to date but could use some updated information. I believe that all necessary content is on this article and explains a great in-depth review of this organization. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It does not address historically underrepresented populations, however it does explain the historic natural disasters that effected developing countries.

Tone and Balance: The article is very neutral and describes the organization in a third person perspective. I did not notice any bias toward a particular position or group while reading this article. I do not believe that there was any type of persuasion in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References: Most facts in the article are not backed up by a reliable secondary source, they are mostly relied on 1 source. Most of the sources are reliable in coming from the American Red Cross website, military websites, and books about the red cross. The sources are relatively current, ranging mostly from within the past 10 years. Most seem to be from book or journals as well as websites. Most of the links that I clicked on did work and took me straight to the website.

Organization and the writing quality: This article was well-written and concise and included all services of the organization. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors within this article except for a few capitalization issues that can be easily fixed. The article is broken down into section and sub-sections that allow the reader to follow a clear organizational path. There seems to be a lot of copy and paste within the sources.

Images and Media: The articles images enhance understanding of the topic and help readers follow through the information. I would say the images are not considered well captioned, however they are just enough to get the relevance to the topic across. All images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations and are visually laid out next to each corresponding section.

Talk page discussion:

There are many corrections going on behind the scenes in the article's talk page. There some minor details that go more into depth about what they offers, as well as some individuals who think that the article shows bias. It was rated a class C on WikiEDU grader which means it is an intermediate article with room for improvement. I did not see it as a part of any WikiProjects. I do not think it differs from the way we we've talked about in class, as it is common that students learn about this organization.

Overall impressions: The strengths of this article is its organizational skills and it's information. I think that it can be improved by having less copy and paste as well as go more into depth about the new services and resources that it provides. I would say that this article is mostly well-developed. There are recent topics that can be added to the article to increase knowledge as well as some that have happened in the past. Overall, it has a lot of information but can still use some edits.