User:Crystalm2392/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Conservation biology

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.)

I've always been interested in biodiversity conservation and sustainable natural resource management. This is an important topic of discussion because it talks about factors like climate change and the ethicality of biological conservation.

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.)

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.