User:Aalva450/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: (link)Animal Equality
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I am an animal lover who is passionate for animal rights and equality. Animal cruelty such as animal poaching etc. not only saddens me, but it enrages me and I believe that animals since they are defenseless should have a voice for someone to protect them.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really because the lead and the major sections of the article do not coincide as it mentions the animal rights organizations of various nations and in the actual article they are not all explained.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, just like mentioned before I do not see all the countries listed in the article and what they're doing to protect animals rights.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise, in my opinion because it goes straight to the point and explains what animal rights actually are.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it was last reviewed/edited on February 19, 2020
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like they should've expanded more on the countries that they mentioned in the lead, for example create a section for each country and the organization and what they have done for animal rights.

Is the article neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, I feel that the person who wrote this article was careful in maintaining a neutral standpoint and of course since it is the main topic of the countries and the organizations and what they have done as far as animals rights, since it was the main topic they over-presented in that sense. If anything maybe they should've changed or tweaked the title of the article to something more specific.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the author does not intend to convince/persuade anybody, it is more so informative.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
Are the sources current? Yes
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, in my opinion it is easy to read, however some sections could have been more concise.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? It does not have many grammatical or spelling errors, but I did notice that the person who wrote this article tended to be repetitive and could've said some things that he/she explained in a paragraph in one sentence. There was also a lot of fragments.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I feel that it can use a little more organization because in my opinion it went a little all over the place, they should have gone from a general viewpoint to then the specifics. Additionally, they should have defined what animal rights were to further detail and given some examples of what ways animal rights are disrespected or taken away, maybe also by explaining what animal cruelty is.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, not one image at all, but the sources used do have some great images that relate to the topic.
Are images well-captioned? N/a
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? I do not see any conversations started
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is part of Wikiproject Animal Rights and Wikiproject Organizations
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? In our class, we haven't discussed any animal rights or anything of that nature.

What is the article's overall status? Good
What are the article's strengths? The articles strengths are the history component and the sections that explain the prevalent and prominent countries that have done a lot to protect animal rights. The article is also very informative and is neutral.
How can the article be improved? I think the article can be improved just like mentioned before either sectioning off what each country mentioned in the lead has done for animal rights or just doing one section that notes all these countries doings and organizations for animal rights. It would also help if they start out by explaining what it means to violate an animals rights etc. Also, some pictures would've been nice to get visuals and capture peoples attention, since we are visual creatures and people who are animal lovers instantly adore when they see pictures of animals.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that it has potential and that with a little more work it can be well-developed, it is a work in progress because it is missing some vital information/details that can improve it to capture peoples attention. It lacks visuals which bores the readers.

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 — ~~~~