User:I Have No Authority/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: Anthropocentrism
 * The concept of anthropocentrism is central to my interest in humans' relationship with the environment. It appears that all human interactions with the environment first stem from whether they believe in anthropocentrism or not so this is an important subject. However, the article could better explain the debate around the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The first three sentences of the introduction effectively define anthropocentrism. However, the lead does not include a brief description of- or even allude to- the other article's other major sections. A single sentence stating that the concept of anthropocentrism has influenced a diverse range of academic fields and popular culture pieces would provide a sufficient introduction to the article's major topics. The lead does not contain information that is not further explained and has an appropriate amount of detail.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and is up to date. There are two citations from 2016 and one citation from 2019. However, I do think the section regarding animal rights could include a sentence about the tie between veganism and vegetarianism and criticisms of anthropocentrism given the growing popularity of the diets and their relevance in contemporary culture and to this topic. I would not say that specific content is missing but some of the content in the article seems somewhat arbitrary. For example, why talk about cognitive psychology and not anthropology? For this reason, I think this article would benefit from further contributions but I do not think the additional information is crucial to one's understanding of the topic.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The tone of the article is neutral. The authors do a nice job of presenting various academics' and thinkers' support and criticism of anthropocentrism without favoring one of the other by using loaded wording or elaborating on one more than the other. In this way, the article is not biased, does not underrepresent or overrepresent a specific viewpoint, or attempt to sway the reader's position.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The large majority of the facts presented in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. However, I believe some sentences could have used a citations when one was not present. For example, the claim that supporters of anthropocentrism that are concerned about the state of the environment suggest that it is in humans' best interests to "maintain a healthy, sustainable environment" needs a citation. The sources are current and the embedded links work. Overall, the citations for this article seem well done although it is difficult for me to confidently say whether they reflect the available literature on the topic because the topic is very broad and I am not familiar with the breadth of the literature. Rather, I can say that there appears to be sufficient defense for both the supporters and critics of anthropocentrism and the various lenses one can study it through.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article could more clearly articulate the conversation around anthropocentrism in environmental philosophy and through a human rights perspective. First, I do not understand why some of the selected quotes throughout the entirety of the article have been included as they do effectively advance the reader's knowledge of the subject. Second, some times quotes accompany on thinkers' beliefs and not others, which seems unbalanced. Lastly, the description of the connection between anthropocentrism and human rights confuses me. It is possible the section only needs to be rewritten more clearly but there appears to be a typo of sorts. The author states that anthropocentrism is "the necessary fundamental premise to defend human rights," yet finishes with a quote that says anthropocentrism could lead to the treatment of certain races as inferior species, like we treat animals. The two are contradictory. There are a couple grammatical errors, such as misplaced periods and quotation marks. The article is broken into logical sections with a logical organization. I like that the page finishes with anthropocentrism in popular culture.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions
 * The page does not include any media but I do not think images would improve the reader's understanding of this topic.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There is a lot of conversation around this article. The conversation of primary importance is about whether the article is still neutral as some readers believe that the page does not provide enough sources in support of anthropocentrism, rather than biocentrism. The article is rated C-class and is a part of 10 WikiProjects. We have not directly talked about the issue of anthropocentrism in class but I think we have touched on it tangentially when discussing the fact that the primary drivers of human's alterations of the environment is production. Furthermore, Professor Brondizio's discussion around how different cultures derive different values from nature and use different phrases and wording to label their interactions with the environment demonstrated varying levels of anthropocentrism around the globe.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * I think the overall status of the article is mediocre- simply alright. It could use a lot of work but it is not bad enough to justify deleting all the work that has been invested in its creation and the fact that there is plenty of insight it can provide. The article's strength is in defining the term and showing its relevance in a wide range of fields and its presence in popular culture. Overall, it proves the pervasiveness of the anthropocentrism in modern life. The article could be improved by evaluating the quotes included in it and better articulating the conversation between supporters and critics of anthropocentrism.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: