User:Apirah.n/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Environmental impacts of animal agriculture

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate an article on the environmental impacts of animal agriculture because it is an important problem that our generation is currently facing and will face in the future. Meat consumption contributes to a large portion of our environmental footprint, however, it remains as a vital industry in our economy. As the population starts to increase, we will need to produce more meat to keep up with demand, which presents both environmental and health risks. Meat is an important aspect of many diets around the world, which is why phasing meat out will be extremely difficult. Plant-based "meats" are slowly starting to emerge and become options at grocery stores and fast-food chains.

My initial impression of the article was that it was well-written overall. The subtopics were well chosen and relevant, such as resource use, climate change aspects and alternatives to meat production and consumption. Most of the facts and numbers were accompanied by citations. However, I did notice that a lot of the data and discussions focused on the United States.

Evaluate the article
Overall, the article was clear in the facts and data it presented. Most claims were supported by examples from other countries or general worldwide predictions to put the issues at hand into perspective. For example, the article highlighted that changes in demand for meat will change the environmental impact of meat production. This was put into perspective when the sentence that followed estimated that global meat consumption would double by 2050. Another fact that was put into perspective was the difference in meat consumption around the world. The article notes that Western nations consume more than 220 pounds of meat per capita per year, while poorer African countries consume less than 22 pounds per capita per year. Using direct examples or estimations provides more clarity for the reader to understand the seriousness of the issue and gain a visual or quantitative understanding.

The structure of the article could use improvement. The article focuses on important topics such as resource use, climate change aspects, effects on ecosystems, etc... which are all accompanied by relevant subsections that are important when examining the environmental impact of animal agriculture. However, the introductory sentence of the article does not capture the issue the article is trying to raise. The first sentence focuses on the fact that animal agriculture practices vary worldwide, rather than focusing on the environmental aspect. The rest of the lead section however, presents important facts and relevant information. This includes the percentage of GHG emissions the meat industry is responsible for and concludes with possible mitigation options. Another major issue with the structure is discussing the benefits of meat production at the end of the article. This section goes against most of what the article is trying to focus on (that meat production is bad for the environment) and needs to be discussed in earlier sections that are relevant such as the resource use section. For example, the article focuses one benefit of meat production - that materials such as grain-based waste is converted/composted to feed livestock. This would make more sense to be mentioned in an earlier section such as resource use. It can cause confusion to argue a separate view at the very end of the article.

The content itself is relevant to the topic and subsections. Most of the data or facts presented focus on the 21st century, with some examples from the late 1900s. The article uses images and graphs to help readers understand the data. For example, one of the graphs in the article shows air pollution (through sulfur dioxide) of different types of protein products. It goes from highest to lowest, starting with beef and ending with tofu. This graph is both a quantitative and visual aid in helping to understand the environmental impacts of different types of protein options. One of the flaws in the content however, would be the focus on the United States in certain subsections, creating unbalance and overrepresentation. Wikipedia has highlighted this issue through the use of banners in subsections such as "water use" and "soils". Focusing on one country may give a distorted view of the specific issue being discussed. The article should dedicate a separate subsection to discuss how animal agriculture has impacted the global south, with a focus on countries that are still developing or impacted by Western meat consumption.

In terms of neutrality, the article does focus on the negative environmental impacts of animal agriculture, while listing one positive impact toward the end of the article. This may seem like the authors are choosing a side, however, in neither scenario do they openly recommend that meat consumption should or shouldn't be decreased. The article rather focuses on what the facts are and what studies are discussing and recommending.

Most facts in the article are backed up by a secondary source but not all. For example, the article states that belching is the main cause of methane emissions from certain animals such as cow, sheep and other ruminants. However, this fact is not backed up by a secondary source despite being a strong claim and being presented in the lead section. It is also important to note that not all sources are from scholarly publications. Some sources are from official websites or news articles which are not always reliable.

An issue that should be raised on the Talk page is the lack of substance for the section that discusses the benefits of animal agriculture. Only one benefit is pointed out and it does not seem to consider the negative aspects that are associated with the "benefit". For example, the benefit mentioned is the conversion and composting of materials to feed livestock. But, the section does not mention the net total impact because it does not consider all the factors involved in feeding livestock, giving a false perception.

Overall, the article is pretty strong. There are a lot of facts and data presented to help support the points the authors make. The article is well-developed and can use editing in some sections to give readers a more clear, well-rounded understanding.