User:Crystalm2392/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

 * Article title
 * Conservation Biology


 * Article Evaluation
 * The lead section is clear and concise. It provides a broad but informative overview of conservation biology and sets up the article for the contents. It lacks specific mention of the contents, but covers a broad array of all the topics mentioned in the contents. The content is relevant to the topic and covers all aspects. It is concise and provides all the necessary information needed to gain an understanding of the topic without over-explanation or being overly-detailed. It talks about history, the biological approaches and processes of measuring and tracking conservation, human intervention and ethics, species concepts, and other related context. The content is relevant and up to date. The article is pro-conservation and biodiversity protection, and in that way it feels slightly left-leaning. However, there isn't an overwhelming presence of bias. The sources range from academic journals to articles. Many of the sources date back between the early 1990s and 2010s. However, the sources are diverse. The writing is well organized and easy to read if you have no background in biology. There are images provided, mostly graphs and statistics, but more could be included to enhance the understanding of the topic. In the talk page discussion, many people said that there was information that was irrelevant to conservation biology, and that the article overlaps with other topics like ecological conservation. Some of the sections were sloppy or inaccurate. By the looks of the discussion, these changes have been revised. After reading the discussion topics, I realize that some of the content sections are a bit vague or two broad, and that it should be more specific to the topic to avoid overlap. Although I see simplicity and conciseness as a strength, being too broad weakens the article. The article has a good foundation, but more detailed information could be added to specific sections to develop the article further. Additionally, since conservation biology is such a broad topic, I feel as though there could be more contents added to this article than the ones provided.


 * Sources

Option 2

 * Article title
 * Environmental Protection


 * Article Evaluation
 * This article is fairly clear and easy to understand. However, it lacks in overall context and description of what environmental protection means, what it includes, and other important background information. It does a good job covering country policies and measures concerning environmental protection. It does, however, lack statistics that distinguish the current state of the environment. More statistics or graphs could strengthen this article. It also lacks aspects like ethics, law, and education, which are important factors to consider for this topic. Overall, it has a decent start, but is missing crucial information that would make this a stronger piece.


 * Sources

Option 3

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 4

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources

Option 5

 * Article title
 * Article Evaluation
 * Sources
 * Sources
 * Sources