User:Wikiali14/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Sustainable Forestry Initiative
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.  I have chosen this article because sustainability is a topic that I am passionate about and forestry in this topic is something that I find interesting. I believed this article would be a good choice because Forestry is important and impacting the World.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. There are four introductory sentences that describe specifically what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There is a table of contents located under the introductory sentences that explain the different areas on the article. You can find the articles different sections there.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead does not contain information that is not in the article. It talks about specific rules over topics that are present. I believe all relevant information is included.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. The information in the article is about the SFI program itself and what it's standards are.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The page was last edited on February 22nd, 2020 at 7:12.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not believe that any information is missing from this article. All content that is presented within the article seems like it belongs, I wouldn't say that something does not belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? We believe the article is overall neutral. We think it is in favor of SFI but we do not think that they say anything that could be skewed as opinion because they even offer third party reviews.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not believe it is heavily biased one way or another. There are no claims more heavily biased on way over another.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The first paragraph about the program itself is pretty in depth, but I do not believe that it is overrespresented. I believe it goes in depth enough because you need background information to understand a topic overall.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I believe that the article gives the reader all of the information that they were to need in order to form an opinion on the SFI Program.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? There are ample sources for this article. A lot of which are .org's or reliable in nature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe the sources are thorough. They go in-depth in explaining their points and reasoning while presenting the facts logically.
 * Are the sources current? Most sources are within the past five years. In the scheme of 20 years being a long time, I would consider the sources current enough for the topic at hand.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Out of the five links we looked into, they all lead to a page or pdf.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the article is clear and easy to read. It is easy to follow and understand.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? We did not find any errors in grammar or spelling.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the flow of the article is clear and easy to follow.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images included in this article.
 * Are images well-captioned? This is not applicable.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? This is not applicable. There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? This is not applicable.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Someone is talking about the fairness of the article. As if the article is written by someone who is "for SFI".
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is part of the following projects: WikiProject Forestry, WikiProject Environment, and WikiProject Brands.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? We believe that the article goes pretty in depth on it's topic and gives ample sources. It also gives third party reviews which shows multiple angles to the program. It is able to provide sources of information on the topic, while applying them in an understandable way.
 * How can the article be improved? Everyone always has room for improvement! Always having more first hand sources is better, and having more scholarly sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe that this article is something that will continue to be a work in progress seeing as though it is a program that is current and ever changing. Whoever is editing this article seems to be pretty current also. Overall the article is well developing I would say.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: