User:CarterSmith97/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: Animal Testing (Animal testing)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I was looking through the academic disciplines section of wikipedia, and noticed bioethics. I thought it was an interesting root to take considering its not something we talk a lot about in a bio class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not that I can see. Most things talked about in the lead are covered later on in the article in more detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I feel as though it is overly detailed. I understand the wikipedia page contains a lot of information which makes sense for a bigger lead, however I feel as though it was slightly wordy.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, the last edit was made yesterday.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all information is relevant to the topic of animal testing, as well as sharing multiple views and ideas of animal testing throughout time.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes the article presents differing viewpoints in its own section. It seems to present the article concisely and without taking a side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Reading the viewpoints section, they provide many different philosophies, and none seem to edge out the others in terms of representation.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * As mentioned above, I again don't believe that any certain view was over or underrepresented in the presentation of animal testing.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the article provides an unbiased view of something that is up for debate.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the reference page is numerous, and many aspects and topics of the wikipedia page are hyperlinked to the original source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part, many are from 2010-2020. There are, of course, many sources from before that decade, however it seems current ideas are also presented.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, it follows a nice order starting with history, and then going into the laws, as well as the actual treatment of these animals, and finally the different philosophies surrounding them
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No - or at least not that I was aware of.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, all of them are helpful in explaining or showing what is being talked about.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, as far as I'm concerned.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, they don't obstruct the text or take away from it, but they do catch the eye.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are a lot of conversations about the use of words in order to provide an unbiased view of animal testing.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated as a good article, and is a part of 3 wikiprojects that I could find.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't really talked about animal testing in class, however in terms of our discussions about wikipedia and what a wikipedia page should be, the article matches up in terms of its organization, information, and presentation of multiple sides.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Very good, and also an interesting read
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It is incredibly unbiased, and with a topic that can be so biased as well.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Maybe less wordiness in the lead, or maybe just less information from the start?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is incredibly well-developed. Looking at the article and talk page, it has been under a lot of editing and conversation.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: