User:Lkhk32/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Human ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

This article talks about human ecology, which is one of the aspects I would like to approach within my Wikipedia assignment. Therefore, by evaluating this article I would be briefly learning about the broad and important field of human ecology, as well as, how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of a Wikipedia article, which would prove beneficial when making my edits. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very compact, simple, and concise. Also, I noticed a little number of images and a decent webpage design.

Evaluate the article

Evaluation:

Lead section:

• The topic of the article can be clearly identified with its very first sentence. Overall, gives a brief overview of the key points that are going to be talked about in the article. However, it may be too short to present it as an efficient summarization of the primary aspects of human ecology.
• The lead section could be extended by writing about the main importance of the field, at least a concise introduction to it. This section does not refer to information outside of the article.

Content:

• The content, in general, manages to develop the topic of human ecology for the common reader.
• I think that since human ecology can be related to a wide range of disciplines, it can be challenging to find the precise division to develop the topic. Nevertheless, in this article, the most important subjects mentioned in the "Lead section" seem to be covered throughout its content. Additionally, the "Overview" section provides an overall fact-based summary of the reach that the area of human ecology has.
• The information is up-to-date.

Tone and Balance:

• The article appears to be of neutral point of view, with no biases encountered.
• The different positions, perspectives, and commentaries are presented as balanced and fair since human ecology is a broad field.

Sources and References:

• Many of the links provided in the "References" section of the article seem to work. Yet, some links redirected me to the main webpage instead of the journal/article/book referenced.
• Overall, the sources are current, thorough, and reliable, many of them being from academic journal's papers, published within the past 10 years or more by a diverse array of authors and publication sites.
• I consider that the ScienceDirect.com webpage could provide a wide collection of articles and publications about human ecology for further reading or references for the article itself.
• I believe all facts and statements in the article were backed up by trusted secondary sources of information.

Organization and Writing Quality:

• The article seems to be adequate, coherent, and cohesive.
• It is easy, concise, and clear to read, and did not encounter any grammatical or spelling errors.
• The article's structure and division of the content seem well-founded. However, I would change the order of the sections, such as putting the "Ecosystem services" section before the "Niche of the Anthropocene" section, for the latter to be before the "Sixth mass extinction" section since they both correlate.
• The side boxes of information complement the article's main content.

Images and Media:

• I deem that the images included in the article could be laid out in a more visually appealing way; since there are few images, there seems to be an imbalance between text and media.
• More images could be added to the article (if found and adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations) to visibly assimilate and understand the topic, such as images of the key persons, terms, and concepts.
• The two presented images in the article are well-captioned.

Talk Page Discussion:

• The most notable and recent conversations about this article seem to do with some external links being modified and added for better accessibility and comprehension for the sources provided.
• It does not seem the article has been rated yet. However, it states that it is or has been part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, and has several WikiProjects' interest.
• I consider that the suggestion about adding an "ambiguous word" entry or statement (by the user HE logic) seemed reasonable and appropriate. Perhaps it could be added to the "Overview" section of the article.

Overall Impressions:

• The article's overall status seems to be satisfactory. Its strengths principally rely on its conciseness, comprehension, and classification of the content.
• By adding more images and/or media, and extending the "Lead section" in the article, the article could improve for better comprehension of the topic.
• I liked the addition of a "Key Journals" section of the topic in the article, and the "Further Reading" section seemed helpful for those who will like to further acquire knowledge about human ecology.
• I would assess the article as being between almost being well-developed and well-developed.