User:Assumption25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose this article because it interested me, and gave me a place to learn more about animal abuse and how it can occur frequently in places where people have an abundance of power.

Evaluate the article
(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.) The lead section includes the topic sentence that easily identifies what the article is going to be discussing and evaluating. The lead section also includes enough information to give an overview of what is going to happen in the article while still not giving too many details that would distract the reader. The content of the article is relevant to the topic. The topic of the article was based on a trial that occured in 2008, but there are updates up to 2015. There is no missing content in the article. The article deals with animal abuse done by someone in a position of power and high status, therefore the animals could be identified as an underrepresented population. The article sets up the case in a very neutral way where the facts are presented and there is no opinion given. The viewpoint given that is presented more so in the article is of the chargers pressed against Michael Vick. There is a small paragraph about the supporters of Vick, but that is small in comparison to the length of the article. I do not believe the author is trying to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another. The facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources including articles, sports news sources, and newspaper articles. I believe the sources do reflect the available literature on the topic. The sources are all around the same year that the raid of the dogs occurred, therefore they are current in relation to the article. The sources of the article are not very diverse, as the majority of them are from big names like the New York Times, LA Times, NESN, etc. This does not offer opinion from marginalized individuals. There are some sources that when clicked on seem like spam web pages with information that could be found in better places like a peer-reviewed article. I believe those sources were unnecessary to use, because the author has enough reliable sources to cover the information given throughout the article. The links that I clicked on did work, and took me to the sources that they say they are. The article is well-written, concise, and easy to read. There are not any glaring spelling or grammatical errors that I see in the article. It is a very well-organized article, as it breaks down into sections about the investigation, charges, response, sentencing, and backlash. I like how the article breaks down sections in order of how the events happened after giving a good overview of everything at the beginning so a bigger picture can be painted for the readers. There is only one image in the article, so the use of images to help better understand information could be improved. I believe the article is well-developed. The information is easy to understand and very in depth. I did not feel like I was missing any important points, and gained a lot of knowledge on the topic by reading it.