User:Lb6578/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Avoidance response

I've chosen to evaluate this article because it is closely related to some of the topics we've been discussing in class. Immediately I saw keywords that reminded me of class such as "negative reinforcement" and "operant conditioning". Hopefully the topic's closeness to class material covered so far will allow me to understand it better and evaluate it better as well.

Lead
The Lead's introductory sentence is brief but it is lacking in a good description of the topic. The rest of the Lead's first paragraph sort of beats around the bush continually saying what avoidance response is many times over in different ways with different levels of detail. This makes the Lead quite lacking in conciseness. The first paragraph could probably be more succinctly combined into one or two introductory sentences that allow the Lead to expand into important connected topics and the later content of the article. The Lead does not reference or describe the major sections of the article to any significant degree. The Lead also starts referencing avoidance response in terms of 'food aversion' but then does not really follow through with any elaboration in the later article content.

Content
The content of the article is related to the topic, however, it could probably be expanded upon and add more information about avoidance response in general. The content could probably be improved by adding information from more up-to-date sources. All but two of the references are more than twenty years old. I'm sure more recent literature could be mentioned and explained as well. This lack of recent literature is a major flag that there is large disparity between our understanding and findings in the scientific literature and what is elaborated on in the article.

Tone
The article's point of view and claims definitely seem neutral as its content doesn't really get into controversial topics. Based on the age of many of the references, I feel like the viewpoint of the article may be a little dated in some areas.

Organization
The article is not very well organized. As previously mentioned, the Lead section isn't very succinct and to the point and it doesn't reference the major sections of the article. Furthermore, the article does a fairly poor job at connecting the sections. It's as if there is no flow to reading the article. There doesn't seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors throughout the article.

Images and Media
The article only features one image and it seems to be a poorly chosen one. The caption under the image references that the animal displayed in it isn't displaying avoidance response. One would think that in an article about avoidance response, they would at least use an image displaying it. Since there is only one image and its in black and white, I would say the image and its placement are both unappealing visually.

Talk Page
The article's talk page is completely empty. The article is rated as C-class and of mid-importance and low-importance. It is the physiology, psychology, and animals wikiprojects. The article was also part of a different educational assignment.

Overall Impressions
This article could be improved by expanding on more current literature surrounding this topic. Further editing could improve the reading experience for the article as well. Overall, the article is fairly underdeveloped and needs more information.