User:Brontesmithclass/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Climate change and fisheries

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.)

Fishing impacts the world greatly and seeing the link between climate change and fisheries is something I would like to contribute to. I believe having a good jumping off point for this topic, as that is how many people use wikipedia, will be nice to contribute to. My initial reaction to the wikipedia page was that it seems to focus on rural and smaller fishing communities that will be disproportionately affected. It definitely has room for improvement.

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.)

Lead Section

The lead introduces the nuances of the topic first which seems odd, opposed to defining the idea of climate change influencing fisheries and vice versa.

The lead includes a brief description of some of the major sections, but not all of them.

It does not cover information not present in the article.

The lead is concise.

Content

One section on overfishing does not seem relevant to the topic, it seems like it does not belong the way it is written.

The content does not have resources past 2013 with the exception of one from 2015. Most of the cited materials are from 2009 and earlier.

I would say the topic does not address larger fisheries impacts, it focuses on how climate change will affect smaller, more historically underrepresented populations. This is good representation, but it seems relevant to discuss larger fisheries impacts as well.

Tone and Balance

The article is neutral with the exception of the overfishing section, there is a bias on limiting overfishing opposed to speaking on its direct impacts to climate change at all.

Sources and References

The sources could be updated in some cases or backed with more recent information.

Not all of the links lead to the content it is supposed to lead to, but the PDFs work

Organization and writing quality

Most of the article is written well, with the exception of the overfishing section. It is well organized

Images and Media

Most of the images are hyper specific and do not enhance the understanding of the topic.

Talk page

The talk page has not had proposed edits since 2012. Some sources have been updated, largely in 2017. The page was looked at by other classes in January 2022.

There is not a large variety of input, mostly by an editor in 2012- the overfishing section person.

Overall impressions

This is a C-class article

The strengths are in talking about marginalized communities, covering a variety of relevant topics in a reasonable amount of depth with lots of highlighted words to read further on or define as needed.

The article can be improved by editing the overfishing section, lead, and updating sources. The article is underdeveloped and needs more up to date information.