User:ImagineWorldPeace/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?[edit]
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?[edit]
I have read the book thoroughly as well as listened to it as an audiobook.
Evaluate the article[edit]
Lead section[edit]
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, and does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise, and frankly, an excellent example of listing the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" of the book.
Content[edit]
The synopsis is a good representation of the book's contents. Unfortunately, the links to Philip Limbery's website are broken. The page does not link to the Wikipedia page for Isabel Oakeshott, the second author. I suggest including a list of the book's table of contents. The first paragraph of the synopsis does an excellent job of summarizing the authors' main points, which essentially provide evidence to show why the normalized idea that the world population can (or should) be fed via the industrialized model of animal agriculture is a worrisome myth.
Tone and Balance[edit]
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
The article is neutral. It provides a fact-based description of the book's contents. The description of the authors' findings and claims about the veterinary field seem overrepresented, but I think that is because other chapters are not summarized with the same level of devoted space within the article. The article does not highlight what is likely to be a common assumption: The authors are not trying to make the case for readers to stop eating meat. Instead, they are providing the reader with an open and honest discussion about the problems associated with this gargantuan industry and possible solutions.
Sources and References[edit]
Many of the sources are to either reviews of the book or the author's website. Unfortunately, the link to the author's website is broken. When reading this book I recall making notes to myself to look up the scientific articles cited in the book. As this book makes such a compelling argument, I would like to see this article become like a "Cliff's Notes" version of the book, where each chapter is thoroughly summarized and particularly, the noteworthy academic study findings are described and cited.
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing quality[edit]
The article is well written, well organized, neat and concise.
Images and Media[edit]
The use of images in the article is visually appealing and informative. They certainly enhance understanding of a dominant, yet, to the average person, visually distant or obscure business model.
Talk page discussion[edit]
The article is a part of four WikiProjects and rated C-class on all of them. There is not a discussion about this particular page. I think I might start one including the feedback I provided above. I find it noteworthy that I see some of the WikiProject Animal Rights discussions carry an air reminiscent to the ideological in-fighting within the movement. As Wikipedia articles must provide unbiased, fact-based, and encyclopedic content, I think it's worth ensuring those values serve as a moral compass when editing.
Overall impressions[edit]
The first paragraph of the article's synopsis is excellent. The article can be developed further to include more of the powerful revelations in the book--particularly the groundbreaking peer-reviewed studies cited in the book.