User:Kolvera/Choose an Article

Article Selection edit

Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Article title: Water scarcity
Article Evaluation: This article was very informative and had a neutral balanced tone that provided evidence relevant to it, but I think that its sources need to be updated. With that being said, I think that there needs to be a little more updates on the wording used as well. Some articles are used from the mid 2000s, and early 2010s. In this case, there is really no time relevant evidence because a lot has changed on water scarcity in the past two decades and these changes should be reflected in the article, at least with changes of the articles from the 2000s. I think that this article clearly described the issues with water scarcity, which is multi-faceted, and the images/visuals provided great illustrations of this issue, but their captions were not descriptive enough.
Sources: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1500323

Article title: Human impact on marine life
Article Evaluation: This article is very coherent and provides a balance in the neutral wording between explaining human impact on marine life and not placing blame on humans. What I mean by this, is that this article provides the facts and does not make it about just humans, it literally states the facts about how humans have impacted marine life and ecosystems. There are some instances where the article does not explain how these different effects of human activities have been caused by humans, which is necessary in explaining the methods that have resulted in the impact on marine life. Another thing is that the images are not the best at being visual pleasing in the sense of the fact it tends to split up the different sections of the articles.
Sources: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47201-9

Article title: Water conservation
Article Evaluation: I think that this article is concise and does not have many problems. When listing the different methods/tools of water conservation, the article provide a bulleted list that gives a cohesive and succinct list of different methods (some of which I did not know), but I think that providing pictures in this part would have been more helpful to readers for them to visualize what it is that helps contribute to water conservation. Also, a different format instead of a list, maybe to explain each method/ tool of water conservation to help explain to readers what exactly is one of those methods, so they could be more aware. I think that some of these sources are out of date and that they need to be updated. This article does a good job at maintaining a balanced and neutral tone.
Sources: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3307622/