User:Dayminn/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Chemical weapon

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.)

The reason I had chose this article is because I have always carried an interest in chemical warfare since learning about it in my high school history class. Chemicals were able to cause a ton of damage to the human body, but in a much worse way than a bullet could have. This form of weaponry could cause harm such as burning the skin, making it extremely difficult to breathe, and causing blisters all over the body. For many reasons chemical warfare has been banned and rightfully so. If chemical weapons were still allowed, it could effectively wipe out the human population. I believe it's an important matter for people to know about because it's destructive capabilities are just so grand. Had chemical warfare/weaponry still be allowed, not only humans but animals and fish alike would be wiped off planet earth. My preliminary impression of this article is that it does contain a lot of good info, but there are some parts that come off as contradicting to one another.

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.)

When reading the article I had noticed that some of the facts that were stated such as pepper spray and tear gas being modern chemical weapons had no citations next to them. Overall there are a couple discrepancies laid out within the article as far as citations go, not a lot but there are some in there. When reading the article, everything was able to be related back to the topic of chemical weapons. It went all around the place from cops using tear gas and such during riots, to the use of chemical weapons during WW1, and times in history where other countries had used the weapon. Nothing to distract me from what was occurring in the article, but there were more topics to intrigue me within the article. Though that's more of a good thing than bad. Whilst reading the article, there was nothing that stood out to me as bias. All of it was very factual without conveying any sort of message such as chemical weapons should not be banned or they were good to have been used. Largely in part to that is due to the sources that the other Wikipedians decided to use. The sources for these statements come from a plethora of different text, but all of them appear to follow the rule when it comes to sourcing. That is being neutral, as well as being from journals and independent sources. The viewpoints of the article all had their own representation, the more important parts containing more information. For when it comes to underrepresentation, I feel like the article didn't touch enough on other countries and their chemical weaponry. There was a whole section dedicated to the united states, but no other places. Two sections had little to no info, but the article itself was saying those topics had no good sources for contribution and didn't have a view of the world as a whole. Of the links I checked, they did work. No plagiarism was seen within this wikipedia article. I don't think any of the information is out of date because most of what occurred did happen a long time ago. Since there is plenty of bans on chemical weapons there has been no recent debate or argument ongoing with them. I don't think anything is missing from this article, aside from the parts with no writing, but that’s not the fault of the Wikipedians. There is not enough info or good sources to actually write about them.