User:Rforde2019/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: Alternatives to animal testing
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have a deep love for animals and find animal testing to be abusive if we wouldn't want to be tested on ourselves. To find out about alternatives is interesting so that we can avoid animal testing for now and in the future.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, it gives the definition of animal testing and delves into the goal of having alternatives
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes it does, along with the three guiding Rs which helps wrap it together
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no it does not, the rest of the article mirrors it and is well developed
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is concise and to the point with just enough detail but not overwhelming

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * very much so, it stays on topic and gives good detail
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * yes, nothing much older than 2005 which is good enough time to draw conclusions from data but isn't totally outdated and inacurate
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no, the article is well formulated

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * for the most part, but it also stresses different alternatives to animal testing suggesting that it's abuse and should be discontinued
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * it's not very heavily biased but states facts on the topic which may make it feel biased, but it does go over different countries and their viewpoints
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * it underreresents and brushes over the purpose of animal testing and rather talks about everything wrong with it. But then again it is about alternatives to animal testing so in that case it's not so uncalled for.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * the tone isn't persuasive but the material put into it may be towards preventing animal testing

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * yes, it is all very well put together and frequently reference where they get the information from.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, there is a lot of history behind countries and different laws regarding the topic, along with specific sources that go more in depth about different techniques.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, almost all of them after 2005 which helps with developing research conclusions while also not being outdated and possibly incorrect.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * all the links I clicked worked

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is well written and straight to the point making it easy to read and understand
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Grammar and language is well developed and executed aside from some run on sentences that could use commas
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * It is well organized by listing the alternatives first and separately and describing them, then delving into each countries viewpoint and stance

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * there are very few pictures of the methods, and of anything at all. There is an informational chart describing the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM) and how certain countries work together to prevent animal testing, but other than that nothing.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * the ones that are present have good captions
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * they are fine
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * not really

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * vitro is recommended to be taken out as it applies more to reproduction than cell cultures as animal testing alternative, or at least a source to back it up.
 * the animal welfare organizations list doesn't add any benefit to the article and therefore doesn't need to be there
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * it's a part of a wikiproject for animal rights, rated C-class
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * we haven't talked about it in class but it's very detailed and includes a lot of different information tat can branch off of that one topic

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * wikiproject c-class top importance for animal rights
 * wikiproject c-class low importance for medicine
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * very informative, clear, and covers a wide range of topics that still relate
 * How can the article be improved?
 * doing extra research into the best alternative and most widely used one. use more credible sources
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is well developed and even included some extra information it probably didn't need. nut overall it was well done and precise.

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: