User:Rshaporda/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Animal testing regulations

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because the issue of Animal Rights is important, as the human population can not survive without animals. This specific article discusses Animal Testing Regulations in countries around the world; a lot of harmful testing is done on animals, so this is really an ethical issue as well as an environmental issue. I was curious to learn about how animal testing regulations differ between countries. My preliminary impression of this article was that it lacks information, but the information appears to be organized.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead does include an introductory sentence that sums up what will be discussed in the article. It is a concise sentence, and I think it serves its purpose well. The article references regulations from nearly twenty years ago. I am sure that there have been updates to laws and regulations in regards to animal rights since 2004, so I would not say that this article is the most up-to-date that it could be. The information that the publisher put in the article is still relevant, but it definitely needs to be updated. The article is also very wordy; I believe it would more strongly get its point of informing across if it were more concise. The issue of Animal Rights has been a point of discussion for a long time. With that being said, I do think this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because it is specifically comparing Animal Rights Regulations from country to country rather than simply informing the public on the issue of Animal Rights. The article is written from a neutral point of view. It is serving the purpose of informing, and not persuading. The information is all facts pulled from various sources, and no opinions. There are no claims that lean to one side or try to convince anyone to do anything. There are some sections that are significantly shorter than others, but a reasonable explanation for this can be that there was less information about those particular countries. If this is the case, then all is well. One can always do more digging to learn about a subject, so that might be good idea for this article. Although there are a lot of sources listed for this article, a lot of them come from the same place. In addition, upon clicking some of the sources, I was not granted access to view them. A source listed on a public page should be accessible to the public so that it can be evaluated. The most current sources are from 2019; the others go back to as far as 2000. Although this seems like a long time ago, I did some more digging, and there are not many more current sources that relate directly to this topic. There are current scholarly sources that discuss Animal Rights, but not specific laws throughout the world. The article contains a few grammatical errors, and the writing quality is not the best it can be. The article is quite organized, as I mentioned above. There are separate sections for each mentioned country, which makes the article easy to read. Most of the article seems like it was paraphrased from a scientific source; it would have been an easier read if it flowed smoothly rather than spitting out facts, but again, for the purpose of describing animal testing laws, it did its job. The article contains one image, which is located on the title page (when you initially click on the article). More images and media would have been engaging, but not entirely necessary for the purpose of this article. The talk page for this article is pretty active. The publisher has made a few edits based on evaluations from their peers, which is a good sign. Wikipedia has given this article a C-rating, which means it is fairly detailed, has a few good sources, and has been worked on, but could use some work. I would say that the article's overall status is good. If you are looking to learn about the varying animal regulations from country to country, this article would be a good source to glance over. Although it lacks in some categories, it contains some valuable information. This article could use improvement, but it is definitely a good start. Some of the article's strengths are amount of information and organization. This article can be improved by the addition of media, a few grammatical corrections, accessible sources, and flow of information. The article is well-developed; I think it includes a lot of information on the subject, especially for the countries that have a lot of information about animal testing regulations. As mentioned above, some country's have less information than others. Perhaps some more digging would serve well in this case. Overall, I believe this article is at a good place, and it can use a few adjustments to make it even better.