User:Carr856/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mutation breeding

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because crops was one of the first ways humans interacted with genetic selection. I had heard before about atomic gardening and I wanted to know more about the science behind mutation breeding. This matters because modifying crops for higher yield, better taste, and ease of growing are vital parts of current agriculture. My preliminary impression was that this is interesting but pretty surface level. Each subsection only focused on one or two examples and I did not feel like there were enough broad details.

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.)

Some criticisms that I have of this article include visual layout. This article did not have any images or media. I think that having a figures showing radiation or chemicals causing mutation would provide a good base understanding for those who are unfamiliar with mutation. Furthermore, photographs of radiation gardens or space experiments with seeds would be helpful to keep readers interested and make the page visually appealing. There is a section at the end which explains the percent of mutated food globally. This section was distracting and unclear. It was no immediately obvious to me if the percent of global food consumed that was a mutation bread or if it was the percent compared to other countries. Either way, I do not believe that this is an effective way of communicating information. Maybe this could be done in a small table. After the percentages, notable mutant bread foods were displayed. This list was extremally long, and if I were reading this for pleasure I wouldn't have taken the time to read through it. I think this list was too lengthy and the formatting made it hard to take in. When looking at the content within the article, the tone of the article was appropriate. There were no opinions about nuclear power or the United States trying to prove nuclear power is good. I think that could be an easy trap to fall into, but I appreciate that it did not happen. There were a few sources from the past 5 years, but the majority of the sources were older. I think this article could be stronger with more current information about programs or uses for mutation breeding. My final critique is that the lead section is short and needs more information. There are no more than 5 sentence and I do not think it is a clear full explanation of the topic. Moreover, the topics cover later in the article are not explained.