User:Arr8050/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deep ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
There was no particular reason, I simply trawled through some of the academic sections of Wikipedia until I found a title that seemed particularly interesting.

Evaluate the article
The lead is a bit of a mixed bag, in that it's first sentence is rather good at giving an immediate synopsis of what the article is about. However, it is not concise and has no breakdown of what the article will look like.

As for the content of the article, it seems rather encompassing. A fair amount of weight is given to the principles and beliefs Deep Ecology, while also giving a frank assessment of its flaws in the rather large criticism's section, along with Deep Ecology responses to said criticism's. I don't know enough about the subject to really know if there is missing content, though to my eye's I wouldn't say so. It does give credence to historically looked over topics, particularly in how Deep Ecology sets itself against man enlightenment principles such as man being a steward of the earth.

The tone seems fairly balanced to me, for as I addressed in the previous section it seems to me equal credence is given both to Deep Ecology and it's many critiques. All in all, quite neutral in my reading of it.

The references used to back up claims do seem to have good sources and pertain to the subject, leading me to quite a few environmentalism journals that I had not seen before. That being said, most of them do not seem to be very diverse. Giving life to the criticism of eurocentrism within Deep Ecology, I did not see a single reference that was not from a European or American in the one's I went through. They are at least current, as I a saw a smattering of references from the 2020's towards the later sections.

The article was well written and organized, I found the breakdown to be very sensical and found no typos or grammatical errors in my reading.

The images were very lacking, as there were only three in total and one of them was simply a generic image of the planet. I think at the very least an image of Arne Næss could have been added with how often he is touched on in the article, as one of the very first references I went to had an image of him for an interview he gave, https://openairphilosophy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/OAP_Naess_Int_Bodian.pdf. The other two images did not seem to break any copyright and were appropriately labeled.

After looking at the talk page I suppose that there is a dearth somewhere in the content as the article only has a C rating, even with being apart of multiple wikiprojects. I saw no discussions around it, and it was marked as low importance for all projects it was apart of.

Overall the article seems to meet it's C rating in my eyes, as it was a good cursory view of a subject I knew much about, and it's writing and organization was good and fairly represented. I can see why it doesn't have a higher rating however, considering it does not have many details that a more knowledgeable person might need or want.