User:BlondePink/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Animal slaughter

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because natural food production is important to me not only for health reasons but also for animal living conditions and welfare. It is important to know the reality of how the food we consume is harvested as well as how it affects animals. My preliminary impression was that it is in-depth and dives into not only the basics of animal welfare and food consumption, but also political and religious laws.

Evaluate the article
The article has a good lead that describes what the article will be about and clearly defines the necessary topics and terms. It also mentions all of the different sections that will be touched on. I think the lead is concise and detailed enough. I would say that the content is definitely relevant to the topic of the article. It touches on every aspect of animal slaughter including its effects on humans and animals. The content is up to date, but there is one section that could be done without. The "Public Attitude" section is one that could belong, but I don't think it is very necessary. The article's tone is neutral as it is described in a very factual way. However, due to the nature of the article, it is hard not to sound anti-slaughter. I don't think there are any certain viewpoints in this article, it is fact-based information on the workings and effects of animal slaughter. The article has over 50 sources, and content is consistently cited throughout the article. The article is quite long but does a good job of separating the content with headers and sub-headers. I have not found any grammatical issues. The article does have images, which could be considered a little gruesome, but given the topic of the article, some of those images are relevant examples. Each image is cited, and there are also graphs that offer further understanding of the content. The topics of conversation of this article are mostly structural suggestions and a few suggestions for additional content. It is also a part of multiple WikiProjects: Food and Drink, Animal Rights, Animals, and Veterinary Medicine. Overall I think the article is in good standing. It dives deep into a complex topic. I think that it is written very clearly and in an unbiased way. I don't see much improvement needed, except for editors on the talk page make a few good points about how some parts can be merged together. Overall, this article is very well developed.