User:Anelson2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Environmental social science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this argument because it is a field I am interested in and plan to go on to do academic research in.

Evaluate the article
The Lead section gives a concise definition of what the field of environmental humanities entails and provides links to major subfields within the field. While environmental studies is a very broad field, the article gives enough information without being overly verbose. While all of the information in the article is relevant and up to date, the article only details two subfields political ecology and social epidemiology and does not include information about other relevant subfields. To better represent the field of Environmental social science, more information about the other subfields such as human ecology should be added. The overall tone of the article is okay, there are some sentences that present themselves as opinions rather than facts and because of the unequal representation of the subfields, it seems there is some bias. The article does not try to make an argument or persuade the reader however, which is a strong point.

The sources used are all very recent and relevant which is important due to the fact that environmental social science is a relatively new and upcoming field. Having recent sources and working references improves the assessment of the article. There does seem to be an emphasis of sources from the U.S. and the U.K. and could be improved by having more worldwide sources, particularly Eastern sources that offer a wider range of information and perspective on the topic. The organization and writing in the article is logical, concise and there are not any spelling errors. I do think that more sections could be added to the article but the current organization is good. The article does not include any images or media, however adding images and or media is not necessary to understand the context of the article.

The talk page points to the fact that the article needs a lot of information added and lists possible sections to be added to the page. This is good because the article is lacking a good deal of content. Despite needed a lot of help, the article is rated at low importance. This is likely because the information on the page is not going to be harmful if it is not available nor is there a high demand for the information. Overall, the article has a strong introduction section and is well written however the article lacks a great deal of information in various subfields and on the history of the topic. I think with more work and more authors contributing the article could be greatly improved over time. I would mark the article as incomplete because of this.