User:Cardinals34/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rangeland management

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in land management but I am not too familiar with rangeland management specifically. It matters because preserving land is essential to many issues that are prevalent today and by learning more about how to conserve these areas, we can continue to better the environment. My first impression of this article is that the sections are rather short, there is not a lot of information under each category. This could be because there is not a lot of information on rangeland management, but it could also just be lacking in certain aspects.

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 first sentence gives a good overview of what Rangeland Management is, it is concise and gives the reader a good idea of what it means. However, the lead section only defines what Rangeland Management is and does not give other information on what the rest of the page will look like. This section is concise and does not have too much detail to get cluttered, and it doesn't have other information that is not present in the article.

Content:

The article focuses a lot on the Modern Application of Rangeland Management, specifically in the United States and Globally but has little information on Australia's Rangeland Management. It almost seems like there could be more added if that sub-section has to be included. Although, all of the content is up-to-date and relevant to Rangeland Management. I would think that there could be more content in the History section, it seems to give a general idea of what it was but does not really go into detail. The article does not explicitly mention a historically underrepresented group, which I think could be changed. There could be more content that draws on this idea to make it clearer in the article.

Tone and Balance:

This article does stay neutral, there is no attention drawn to one side or another. And there are no controversies addressed, so the topic does not sway to any opinions.

Sources and References:

All of the facts in this article have a source attached to it, and there are a lot of sources that reflect the literature on this topic. There are some sources that are within the last ten years, but there are also some that are from sixty or more years ago. And there is a range of diversity among the authors, there are historically marginalized groups that are present in the references list. Most of the sources are from academic journals or publications from government websites, and all of the links I checked do work.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The writing is easy to comprehend and digest, and there are no grammar or spelling errors in the article. Readers would be able to understand what the article is portraying in a professional manner. It is broken down into several sections that make it easier to follow. However, there are some parts of the sections that could use more information to make them more informational to the topic.

Images and Media:

There are images that help identify and understand what rangeland management looks like and how some systems operate. All of the images have a caption that is succinct and a clear idea of what is happening in each image, they all follow the copyright regulations as well. Each image lines up with what topic is being discussed and they flow very well.

Talk Page Discussion:

The talk page has a suggestion to make Rangeland Management a split article with Wildlife Management. It also brought up some information that was not included in this article that does correlate with Rangeland Management. This article is rated C-class in Agriculture Articles and is part of WikiProject Agriculture to better the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. We have not got to discussing land management in class yet. However, this article is very matter-of-fact and does not include as much of the social aspect of land management as I would have thought.

Overall Impressions:

I find that the article is written in a professional way, it stays very neutral, and it has images that add to the topic and are not too distracting. But I would suggest adding more information to the sections that are lacking. For example, the Australia section is only a couple of sentences and I think that if it is in the article it should add more to Rangeland Management altogether. I think that the article is mostly developed, it could use more details, but overall I think it looks informative for readers.