User:MystifiedMysti/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Animal rights

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am an animal lover, so I care about animals. They live among us, and it is only right that they should be treated fairly and not be subjected to torture from humans. My first impression of this article is negative because if an article exists about animal rights, it must mean there is a lack of rights for animals in the first place and it saddens me.

Evaluate the article
Lead section looks good, covers the basic definition of the topic.

There seems to be too much emphasis on the topic from philosophical approaches. However, I can't think of much information about animal rights without talking about what others think or their belief system/approach on the topic. So really I'm saying that this article seems to cover everything I could think of relating to animal rights. References can be more up to date, there are some really old ones like from 1938, which would be more relevant if the article was about the history of animal rights; Most references from the 2000s. I would like a section on animal rights from different geographic areas or like where it's most concerning but maybe that would fit more in the history of animal rights article.

There is a critic section in the article that have experts respond to a guy called Peter Singer. I think it would be better if we see criticisms for the topic from other perspectives instead of responding primarily to Singer. The critics seem to all argue against Singer, which does give us point of view of the topic from both sides but I think it would be better if we see more advocates for animal rights from someone else other than Singer.

All the facts in the article are backed up by some reference. Like I've said, they could be more up-to-date. Most references don't have links. I clicked on some links and they do open for me. There's variety of references from various authors/sources.

Organization looks good.

All images are well-captioned and referenced.

There's not much discussion on the talk page; only like two comments.

I think the article is overall decent, could be improved in some of the places I've mentioned above.