User:Alex Prieditis/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Maximum sustainable yield

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 this article because it is very relevant for the resource management, especially within the forestry and fisheries sectors. First impressions are that the article is well formatted and overall 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 section is acceptable, however much of it seems somewhat redundant and could inhibit readers from wanting to read the rest of the article. The lead section defines what maximum sustainable yield is, but does it inefficiently. The content of the article is overall acceptable, but it does not cover problems with the maximum sustainable yield adequately in the criticism section which gives an overall impression of being slightly misleading. The tone is neutral but there is not enough weight given to criticisms section, and the models limitations are poorly highlighted. This leads to the reader believing that there is very limited criticisms. Some of the sources are modern, but most would be generally considered to be out of date given the advances in fisheries and forestry management strategies. The sources do appear to be reliable primary sources. Writing quality appears to be adequate with no glaring issues present. The media is uselessly captioned with the only way of understanding what it is being imbedded in the article itself. The media looks extremely unappealing and do not appear to have any sources. There are a few conversations about the bias in the article and also poorly defined terminology. The article is rated star class for fisheries and fishing, ecology, and economics. The article is overall ok, it needs improved media, and expanded criticism section. The article is strong in the modelling section, but needs some refinement of the lead. Maybe some more examples of the where this was used would be helpful to readers?

~