User:Jennahughson/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Trace evidence

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article due to this subject playing a major role within a variety of individual forensic science disciplines. Trace evidence can be located in various types of scenes. Therefore, I wanted to assess whether the information perusing to this subject matter online lived up to its importance in the forensic science industry. I am hoping to improve the weak points of this article by stating where I believe information should be added or by determining what, in my opinion, is not so pertinent information.

Evaluate the article
To begin, my first impression of this article was that it was quite short. Although, the lead section of this article does include an appropriate introductory sentence clearly stating the articles topic. It does also mention Locard's Principle which is a crucial part of trace evidence as it is essentially the base of this principle. However, the lead section briefly touches on subjects that I find unnecessary to have been added in that particular section; such as mentioning accident investigations for one sentence, or linking forensic engineering to conclude the introduction. The latter subjects could have been introduced throughout the article as their own subsections. Also, as they touched on Locard's Principle, I am surprised to see that the mention of fingerprints or DNA was not mentioned in the lead section as these are very common and highly likely to be located trace evidence.The content section of this page is divided in a manner that I would have excepted: examples of trace evidence, how to preserve and analyze such matter, as well as the limitations behind it. All of these subtopics are important and directly related to properly discussing this articles main topic. Although, some content could very well be added. This said, in the "Examples" section, they did not mention trace evidence pertaining to hair, fibres, GSR or even DNA. They mainly focus on hit and run accidents and the tool marks left behind as the "trace evidence". However, I do appreciate the mention of caution to be taken when collecting such evidence and how they brought attention to the fact that the collection method relies upon the type of evidence being obtained and the location it is primarily found in. I also agree with the statement of nondestructive testing to be conducted prior to more destructive methods in analysis. This information is highly considerable within any forensic analysis to properly maintain the preservation of evidence. In my opinion, this article is not attempting to be persuasive to any point of view. It is simply written to be informative in regards to its subject. As for the reference section and credibility/reliability of this article, there are only 3 references used throughout this whole article. This makes me question how reliable the rest of the non cited information really is as I am unsure where it is originating from. In regards to the images included, yes they do relate to the article; however, their descriptions are questionable. The image of the blood spatter stating that they were "created from a height of two feet" may not be 100% accurate and seems a little bias. There are many external factors that can affect the way we interpret blood spatter and therefore, I do not believe this description to be an accurate measurement of said spatter. In the talk section of this article there was mention of the references only being from the US. This said, it is important to note that not all countries pertain to the same processes of forensic science testing / analyzing. Another thing discussed on the talk page was the use of the word "match" within the article. It is very important to be cautious when using this language in forensic science due to evidence "matching" being somewhat difficult to obtain and not always a probable conclusion. My overall impression of this page is that while it does have potential to be a good article, it is lacking detail and not very well developed. There are links directing to other subtopics within this area in the "See Also" section; however, why not briefly add them into the article themselves? There are MANY subtopics to be considered within this subject and it is obviously not realistic to thoroughly write about them all. Although, this article would be much improved with the addition of more examples and perhaps more discussion on fingerprints. Fingerprints result directly from primary contact between an individual and an item / other individual and are therefore probably what is left behind the most at crime scene in regards to trace evidence.

~