User:Bionchem22/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Carbon monitoring

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose carbon monitoring because it is a very important topic which is crucial to understanding climate change. Because the topic is somewhat controversial, this presents a perfect opportunity to test how unbiased and tonally neutral such an article should be.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is well-written. There's a concise introductory sentence that allows the reader to get acquainted with the concept. Because the topic is quite general, there's some ambiguity to the wording, but this allows the concept to be further explored later on in the article. The major sections of the article aren't completely laid out in the lead section, so that can be improved upon. However, there is no information presented in the lead that isn't explored later on.

The content is business and politics-forward, with an essence of science behind it. For an article about carbon monitoring, there should be a section that explains the methodology behind it, but this isn't explored very well. However, the rest of the topic is well-balanced and up to date. The article uses phrases like "widely seen as" to promote an opinion in the most unbiased manner possible. This is ok in this context, since there are scientific truths behind these opinions. All of the references given are from trustworthy sources, most of them being official government data. The sources of data are given but not aggressively overanalyzed, and this helps keep the tone neutral.

The overall organization of the article is ok, but could be improved upon. For example, the article makes it seems like the United States and European Union are the only ones doing carbon monitoring, but there are probably other countries doing it as well. However, for the sections that are well-explored, the writing is concise and easy to read, whilst still being informative. One thing that would make the article better to look at would be images and media, such as graphs or tables, but there are none present. As for the talk page, there isn't much being discussed; there's only comments about archival data. Overall, this article is well-rounded in tone and quality of information it presents. However, there are sections that could be added to explore the topic in full. I would say this article is slightly underdeveloped, but it's close to being well-developed.