User:IconRomano/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It's one of the earlier earliest environmental laws in the United States. I myself have a background in environmental science and am interested in notable legislation in the field. I also have a special interest in the topic of environmental regulation and its relationship with human health.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence of the lead provides a clear and concise overview of what the law does and achieves. The lead lacks specific references to the subsequent major sections of the page and will need to be expanded. The overall lead section needs to be expanded in size, it becomes to niches about the law being revised, but, lacks information that ties into the rest of this page.

The articles organization and layout is a bit off as well, including how the sentences flow from one to the next. Often the sentences will reference years, but out of chronological order, for example, the sentence prior will discuss 1950 and is proceeded by a mention of the act in 1910. The lack of year organization is especially apparent in the history subsection of the page. I would suggest revising the history section into history of each law revision as a separate paragraph.

The article also features many long lists that make the overall page seem much longer than it is and disrupt the overall readers experience do to abrupt changes in flow.

The article has reliable and trusted sources to verify the content on the page. The articles also has a pretty good diversity of source types and backgrounds, albeit, it overly relies on the EPA website. However, the most current source is from 2016, and most of the sources are from 2012 or older. The article would benefit from the inclusion of a few modern sources to keep it current. Additionally, it seems this page hasn't been updated since 2012 and a majority of the citation links do NOT work.

The article focuses too much on the provisions of the Act and mostly ignores the legislative journey, major events, or public opinion surrounding this legislation. If the act has been revised several times there should be enough of these factors to be able to include some in this page. Currently the article is too niche on a few aspects of the law to be a good page for this website.

The article includes one image, which does help enhance the readers experience. The a4rticle would benefit from including more imagery in the widespread whitespace it has, due to the organization of the page.

The talk page is deserted for this specific topic, the last major conversations occurred in 2012 when it seems students were working on the page for a class. This would explain why most of the citations are prior to 2012. This article is largely forgotten. Reignighting conversation on the talk page through new questions and progress, would be essential to improving the article.

The article seems relatively neutral as it mostly reports on the provisions themselves, there is no real opportunities for opinions.

Overall this article is severely lacking a holistic overview of the Act itself, and instead is a niche legal overview of the provisions contained within. Article is underdeveloped, with its major strength being the legal overview. Would rate the article around a C ranking.