User:CorpusculateAggregation/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Make sure you add the link: Animal magnetism K8shep (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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 by clicking through the history of science tab from the academic disciplines category until I found something that had an interesting title.

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 of the article is adequate in describing the origins and contemporary uses of animal magnetism, but focuses largely on the associated Magnetism (Mesmerism) rather than animal magnetism in and of itself.

-The content of the article leans very heavily towards describing practitioners and contemporaneous feelings about Mesmerism without speaking greatly on animal magnetism (the name of the article) and as well says little about its practices and techniques.

-The article (as aforementioned) is biased towards explaining Mesmerism (not technically supposed to be the focus of the article) and its impacts rather than any of its then uses and only lightly touching on its theories.

-The article didn't have any noticeable spelling or grammatical errors, but seemed to make heavy use of long block quotes from sources

-The writing doesn't feel particularly professional, but I can't really explain this feeling in proper words.

-The images and videos feel somewhat non sequitur, and don't feel related to the sections to which they are attached.

-A lot of the discussion in the talk section is devoted to talking about the feelings of some editors that the article is lacking in talking about theory and practice of mesmerism and of the general lack of talking about animal magnetism, THE TITLE OF THE ARTICLE.

-Overall I would say that the article has a lot of information on it (Though with the factual accuracy attribute at the top I am somewhat suspicious of its content), but it has a lot of flaws regarding its content and the perceived lack of contributing to the article has left it somewhat stagnant. It has potential but it is definitely in a rather sorry state at this moment.