User:Candid Capybara/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1
Birds of New Zealand

Article

Editing User:Candid Capybara/Evaluate an Article - Wikipedia

Sources

Conserving New Zealand’s native fauna: a review of tools being developed for the Predator Free 2050 programme | Journal of Ornithology (springer.com)

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emr.12230 How do we restore New Zealand's biological heritage by 2050? - Norton - 2016 - Ecological Management & Restoration - Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/emr.12230)]

nztcs36entire.pdf (doc.govt.nz) (https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/science-and-technical/nzt cs36entire.pdf)

(PDF) Conservation translocations of New Zealand birds, 1863-2012 (researchgate.net)

Conservation Issues in New Zealand | Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (annualreviews.org) (https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.61)

An Alternative Reality: Māori Spiritual Guardianship of New Zealand's (taylorfrancis.com) (https://www.ta ylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781849774758-22/alternative-reality-m%C4%81ori-spiritual-guardi anship-new-zealand-native-birds-philip-lyver-henrik-moller)

‘Preservation’ and ‘Protection’: Environmental Writing and Representations of Māori in Forest and Bird, 1955-1974 (auckland.ac.nz) (https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/66997)

Drivers and trends in the extinction risk of New Zealand's endemic birds - ScienceDirect (https://www.scien cedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720307886)

Full article: Observations of chick feeding rates and parental defensive responses to disturbance at nests in the critically endangered New Zealand fairy tern/tara iti (Sternula nereis davisae) (tandfonline.com) (https:// www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014223.2023.2256239)

Land of the birds that walk (cell.com) (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(23)01294-0.p df)

Palaeoecological and historical observations of an endemic New Zealand bird (Strigops habroptila, kākāpō) reveal shifting drivers of decline during 800 years of human settlement - ScienceDirect (https://www.scienc edirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423000689)

[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/10.1098/rspb.2001.1918 Prehistoric bird extinctions and human hunting | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences (royalsocietypublishing.org)]

Article title
Gulf of Panama mangroves

Article Evaluation
Lead Section: I think the lead section is pretty good as it stands. I would like it to highlight more of its environmental and biodiversity benefits and why people should be worried about their degradation. I think the very first sentence is pretty good, defining the location and that it is an ecoregion. The lead does not include a description of the article's main sections following the geography. I believe it is just a little too concise for the article, as there can be a slight expansion of the article's headings and more recent information/environmental aspects involving conservation.

Content: The article is not completely up to date; the most recent citation is from 2017 which is not bad. The content of the article is relevant to the topic, as it highlights the geography, flora/fauna, and "current" status of the ecoregion. I do think that there is missing content about the value ecosystem service and economic service. There has also been increased degradation and conversion to agricultural and aquacultural hotspots. I think it would be interesting to add Panamanian perspectives on saving the mangroves and various campaigns that have successfully helped rejuvenate mangrove systems.

Tone & Balance: The tone of the article is neutral tone and is not biased toward a particular position. The article is straight to the point and does not articulate any particular side of the fight for mangroves. However, with the addition of government action and local action to save the mangroves, it may shift the neutrality of the article, which can be addressed. There are no minority fringe points described and it does not persuade the article toward a given position besides that the mangroves are dying and there have been efforts to revitalize the system.

Sources & References: There are only seven total references in the references section, which is in a position for improvement. The scientific information (i.e., erosion, nutrient deposition, annual rainfall, and flora/fauna traits are not all cited by a source, and it looks like material that needs to be cited. The most current of the sources is from 2017, and it does not include any marginalized voices. I think the sources available are not bad, all are peer reviewed, but here is room for improvement in terms of source voices, article publishing (timing), and quantity of sources. The links tested do work.

Organization & Writing Quality: The organization of the article does make sense. However, there are vital sections that are missing, including conservation efforts, biodiversity status on flora and fauna, pros/cons of conservating mangroves versus converting them to agri- and aquaculture lands, and so on. I think there should be more of a focus on the flora itself, alongside the climate/geography sections. There are quite a few grammatical and spelling errors in the article, as Grammarly gave a starting score of 47, with 70 go-to suggestions for the first six paragraphs of the article. Definitely needs improvement.

Images & Media: Images and media are related to the article and are captions. That said, the captions are either one sentence or one phrase, with the possibility of having incorrect grammar. There can be images added to the "Status section of the article, alongside the various flora/fauna that is highlighted by the article. As far as I can tell, the images follow Wikipedia's copyright regulation, and the images are laid out in a proper, though not really personally appealing fashion. The images themselves are pretty basis as is.

Talk Page Discussion: As far as I was able to find, there was no conversation going on behind the scenes of this article. The article is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions and is rated at C-class with mid-importance. I feel like we have yet to speak about this topic within class, though we have discussed the ecosystem values of various ecosystems and how they are heavily underrealized. Mangroves are a prime example of this and one of the ecosystems that has a tremendous impact on global warming and other effects produced by anthropogenic emissions.

Overall Impressions: The article's overall status is not bad, but definitely is viable for improvement. The strengths of the article include the "Status" section and the fact that the information that is cited is backed by a peer-reviewed source. I believe there is more to be said about mangroves in Panama and how they, alongside global mangroves, are vital in the sequestration of carbon from the atmosphere and helping mitigate the effects of climate change at the present time. In terms of the article's completeness, I would say it is at a solid 6/10, and I would rate the article as a 6/10 in terms of my overall impression.

Article title
Parides neophilus

Article Evaluation
Lead Section: The lead section leaves a lot to be desired, as it includes the butterfly's family and which realm it is located. That is it. To be fair, there is not much for the lead section to bounce off of. That said, nothing in the lead is hinted as part of the article, as there is one section, and it is labelled "Description from Seitz". Everything included in the lead is included in the article itself, but the lead section is in need for more information that can be found by adding more to the rest of the article itself.

Content: The content of the article is relevant to the topic, but the information provided is as recent as 1985. There is a lot that can be added to the content of the article, including current habitats, diet, predators, ICUN status, conservation/biodiversity efforts, and so on. There is quite a bit of missing content. That said, I did not read the section included due to how uninteresting and unappealing the section looks. The article does not look into Wikipedia's equity gap, nor does it need to unless there is an underrepresented researcher focusing on the species.

Tone & Balance: The article itself is neutral though it is coming from the voice of a singular researcher. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented, as there is not any material that can be biased (all scientific for the most part). There are no minority viewpoints.

Sources & References: The literature is, mostly, of peer-reviewed sources. The references are in a desperate need of a refresher and more recent resources evaluating the species progress from the 1985 and previous resources. Because of how outdated the resources are, there is a good chance that there are better resources available, which will be included in the potential resources/references. A few of the links included in the references do work.

Organization & Writing Quality: The article is really difficult to read, even with one section and a minimally worded lead section. There are no references included in the section and it is just one huge paragraph. It is super unappealing and very wordy. I worry about plagiarism. When placed into Grammarly, it turned up with a source of 59, with a majority of the errors being in the spelling and grammar. I wish the section was more organized, with paragraph breaks and more sources to expand and back the information cited. To say the least, there is quite a bit left to be desired.

Images & Media: The images included in the article all pertain to the species. The figure descriptions can be improved to include whole sentences and enough information that I know what I am seeing regardless of having the article available. Four of the images do not include captions. I do not know if the images adhere to the guidelines, but seeing my worries about plagiarism, it is possible that they do not. The images are laid out in a fashion that makes sense, but I feel as though there could be more images included relating to the species' habitat, dissection, and other interesting images that do not just encompass the species and their sexually dimorphic traits.

Talk Page Discussion: There is nothing being discussed behind the scenes of the article. The only WIkiProject that is looking at this article is Lepidoptera. The article is rated as a stub-class and has a low-importance. We have yet to discuss the topic in class, thus I cannot say anything in terms of what we have discussed and if it contradicted.

Overall Impressions: The article is at a deplorable state. There is not really a redeeming quality besides the subspecies and scientific classifications being included. I, again, worry about plagiarism involving the only section of the article and there is not enough resources to be able to say the article is in a good position. There is much to be improved upon, including the resources found, adding more subsections to the article (geography, physical traits, IUCN status, conservation efforts, biodiversity, related species, ecosystem services, etc.). In terms of completeness, I would rate it a 1/10, because there is nothing about this article that is actually complete unfortunately.

Article title
Effects of deforestation on soil erosion in Nigeria

Article Evaluation
Lead Section: I think the lead section is a good start so far, but there can be improvement in terms of history of deforestation in the country and talking more about soil erosion as a summarization paragraph. The section should probably display more information involving the rest of the information within the article, including the importance of soil erosion and other forests that also go through soil erosion, as well as conservation efforts and the history of deforestation in the country, I think the lead section is not bad as it stands, though I do think that one or two sentences will complete it.

Content: The content of the article is not too bad, though the article would benefit from more information and the use of subsections for the "Effects of deforestation on soil erosion". The content of the article is as recent as 2023, which is awesome. I do think that conservation efforts and potentially maps of the areas that have suffered deforestation (how has the process changed the terrain of the country). The article does not address one of the equity gaps, though it can potentially with the voices of locals within the country and their conservation efforts and/or perspectives of the process and its influence on normal life.

Tone & Balance: The tone is neutral throughout the article there does not seem to be areas that there could possibly be any questioning to that. There are viewpoints that do not represent underrepresented individuals, but there is the potential to do so with the subject matter being in a developing country.

Sources & References:There are fourteen references for this particular article and they have been updated as of October 2023, which is good news. Alongside with that, information is also as recent as 2023 as well. I feel as though there could be more areas of information that should be cited, as soil erosion and deforestation is not really common knowledge, especially when talking about foundations and the composition of soil within a given region of study (not top-of-the-head or common information for most people searching on the website). That said, the articles within the references are all, or mostly, coming from peer-reviewed sources and the links and dois have links that work. I think it is still a good idea to find a few more resources to fill the citation gaps that are present and make sure that non-common-knowledge information is cited and is cited correctly.

Organization & Writing Quality: The organization and writing quality of the article is not bad, but there is room for improvement. The article is organized by sections, but there is a need for clean subsections to better separate the topics and guide the reader. To that same point, with the missing information as well, those headings and subheadings are going to be vital in articulating the information in a concise manner and telling underrepresented viewpoints in the future. There are grammatical and spelling errors, but definitely not the same degree as the previous articles; it is clear that this article has been given some TLC and is in a better position writing-wise.

Images & Media: I think there is room for improvement on the image-side of the article, as there are only two unappealing images with captions topping four words and with grammatical errors. If I cannot tell what a picture is by reading the figure caption, then it is not a very good figure caption. I believe the photos do adhere to WIkipedia's copyright regulations and the images are in a good position in terms of the article flow, but I do think that there is a little bit of room with improvement when it comes to images being appealing and having vital information in terms of the already-present information and soon-to-be-added information as well.

Talk Page Discussion: There are no conversations happening behind the scenes of the article, nor is there a WIkiProject attached to the article. The article was created as a contribution to the "Deforestation in Nigeria" project, but I do not know if that is a WikiProject or a project for a given organization. That said, there are a few edits to the article that have helped improve the article within 2023, which is a very recent and appreciated change.

Overall Impressions: My overall impression of the article is a good one. I think with the previous additions of information that the article's quality did improve and that there is still room for improvement when it comes to updating the article with the most recent information, alongside with adding underrepresented perspectives. The "Effects of deforestation on soil erosion" section of the article is pretty strong, though there can be improvement on the flow and subheadings of the article. The additions of the article would include conservation efforts and potentially maps of the areas that have suffered deforestation (how has the process changed the terrain of the country) to add a little bit of clarity and not just "this is happening and there is nothing else being done", but "this is happening right now and this is how the effects are being handled by the country and globe." Overall, a 6/10 on completeness and overall impressions of the article.

Article Title
Deforestation in Nepal

Article Evaluation
Lead Section: The lead second is very strong, probably the strongest I have seen through evaluating these three articles. Seven of the ten sources are cited in the very first sentence and everything included in the lead section is also included in the rest of the article. The only piece that can potentially be added are the biodiversity and government regulations that have come about since the acknowledgement of this issue in the country. Overall, a strong start.

Content: Although there is not much material to go off of, the material that is present is strong and ties directly to the subject. I do think that the article could benefit from some additions, including more recent articles and a expansion of perspective from the local people. Even so, the content is related to the topic, is as recent as 2015, and the content is solid from the ten sources that are used.

Tone & Balance: The tone of the article is neutral and there is not a leading of opinion within the article from what I was able to gather. I believe that the article could benefit from a villager/local perspective to give a underrepresented population a space to speak about their experiences and efforts taken to mitigate the issue. Again, the article does not seem like it is trying to persuade anything.

Sources & References: There are ten sources available for the article and only one of the sources is peer-reviewed. It is nice to see a good number of resources on a good article, but the article would benefit from some scientific papers talking about the issue and conservation. The sources are as recent as 2015 and the sources range from their reference point. I do think that once again the article would benefit from more articles that can focus on conservation and biodiversity (adding more information) within the region, as that is a concern for the region at the moment. The links included for the references, at least for the ones I tested, do work and bring me to the original resource.

Organization & Writing Quality: The quality of writing within the article is pretty solid. The sections and flow of the article makes sense and the bases that need to be covered (for the most part) are covered. I do think more information can be added, but it has the basic information that most people that search Wikipedia need. In terms of grammar and spelling, there is a little work that needs to be done, but a decent chunk of the article is consistent, has thorough information, and has decent spelling and grammar.

Images & Media: The media included in the article is not captioned very well, it captioned at all. Although the writing of the article was pretty good, there is a little bit to be desired for the images and media included into the article. I do think that the photos included adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations, but the article would benefit from more images and captions to explain the images more.

Talk Page Discussion: There is no discussion behind the scenes, though the article is part of two WikiProjects. The projects it is a part of include the Environment and Nepal projects. Both projects have the article labelled as a stub class and is unranked on the projects' importance scale. The last time any modifications were made on the article was in September of 2023, which is not bad at all.

Overall Impressions: My overall impression of the article is that it is in a solid position already, but there is more to be desired in terms of updates and conservation methods within the region. I do think the article would benefit from the perspective of local people and speaking about how the deforestation has influenced the country's economy (both in a lumber sense and agricultural in particular due to soil erosion). All of the sections, with the exception of the smuggling section, are all pretty solid. And overall, I would rate this article as a 6/10 for completeness and the solid information that is included.