User:QSmith18

Article Evaluation

Article chosen: Poaching.

Q1: Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

• Everything in the article is related to the topic of poaching. The article defines the term, covers the legal aspects in certain countries, the motives behind the act, the effects, and also the efforts being taken against poaching.

Q2: Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

• The article is neutral and does not contain any biases about the acts of poaching.
• Instead it offers in detail the reason behind those who commit the acts and the ways in which individuals, organizations, and countries are trying to prohibit future poachers.

Q3: Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

• The article covers the history of poaching in Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, and in the United States.
• However, it seems to be lacking the historical viewpoints of poaching in Africa and Asia, which tend to be major hubs for poaching in the 21st century.
• It does mention Africa and Asia later in the article, however the two continent's sections only pertain to the current acts of poaching happening there now.
• The article would be better off if it covered the history of poaching in these continents, rather than just the ways groups are trying to prevent the act of poaching, or what the contents acquired from poaching are used for.

Q4: Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

• Throughout the article the citations work well and help the reader understand different aspects and 'words' that are commonly found in the poaching world.
• For example, the article cites and links certain key word/phrases like mass elephant killings , or the way tiger bones are used in traditional Chinese medicine.

Q5: Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

• Some cited articles do not seem to be reliable references because there is obvious bias being portrayed in their writing.
• For example, one article which talks about those who poach and those who buy the valuable materials from the poaching acts, calls the people "bandwagons & snobs" .

Q6: Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

• Some of the information mentioned about the current number of elephants, rhinos, and tigers seem to be out of date and the articles that are linked/cited to them are a few years old.
• This means that some of the current data sets mentioned are out of date, and even more of these animals are gone and have been affected by poaching.
• I also think the article could mention/add more about the actual poachers and black market traders in Africa and Asia.
• This would give a clear idea of what some of these poachers are making off of these killings. It would also show the distinct differences in 'money made' throughout the passing to the black market from each individual connected to the poached animal.

Q7: Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

• The talk page is filled with many different conversations by individuals talking about areas such as adding new "External Links" about poaching, adding more information behind certain "Species Affected by Poaching", and if a new section on "Poaching in Popular Culture" should be added or become its own Wikipedia page by itself.
• In the "Poaching in Popular Culture" talk section, one individual claims that the article is already too long and doesn't represent nearly enough of the species that are currently being affected by poaching. (that is why the person argues for a new separate page to represent this aspect).
• Additionally, individuals seem civil and asking other Wiki's to view and make sure their URLs and inputs are rational and contribute to the page's info.

Q8: How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

• This article has been labeled as a Level 5 vital argument and is of interest to to many different WikiProjects.

Q9: How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

• The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to capitalize on the currency made from these acts.
• Instead it gives a historical view in countries we have not really focused on like the USA, the UK, and Europe. In class we have focused more on these acts occurring in Africa, South Africa, and Asia.
• However it does capitalize on thing s like we've discussed such as, effects on biodiversity, motives, and medicines.
• It could expand more on the Global Impact and Distribution of Poaching like we've covered a little bit .
• It could also cover the differences of poaching and huntings (or whether people are registered to do so, etc...)