User:Diderotsevenbillion/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pleistocene rewilding.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Chose this article because it is relevant to the subject matter of this course, and I am aware that it is an article with significant issues from prior reading.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: Contains major style and grammatical issues. Inaccurately describes Pleistocene rewilding as 'advocacy.' Focuses on North America without addressing the rest of the world. Appropriately concise, but lacks detail on actual subject of article. Does not outline major sections of article.

Content: Content is largely relevant to article topic. It is not up to date. It is heavily weighted towards certain topics and against others. Paragraphs are devoted to unclear explanations of existing rewilding initiatives and plans with poor distinction between actual, proposed, and possible rewilding programs. The structure of the article is impressively bad. The overall impression given by the article is that it represents the incomplete perspective and excited brainstorming of non-expert fans of the concept of Pleistocene Rewilding, not a well-sourced and neutral perspective on the concept and its practice.

Tone: The tone of the article is highly inappropriate for wikipedia. In many instances it reads as advocacy. Much of the work consists of long passages with few or no citations suggesting possible ecological proxies for pleistocene fauna.

Citations: There are long stretches of text with no citations, and many sources come from the same authorship group.

Organizing and writing quality: This article is incredibly poorly organized - not only does the order of the sections make no sense, I would argue that no individual section of the article should be retained, except perhaps the criticism section. The Mainlands/Island Landmasses division is arbitrary. The implications section is brief and bizarre. Missing is a history of the concept, and the rationale underlying it. The extensive lists of animals are generally not appropriate for this article, and are themselves organized very poorly. The writing is also poor - biased, stylistically lacking, and replete with non sequiturs. The Europe section, for example, begins with "This plan..." despite the fact that no plan had previously been introduced.

Images: The images seem ok, though the media needed will likely change as this article is repaired.

Talk page: The talk page for this article is not especially active, but does reflect that people have a hard time separating their personal beliefs and ideas about this practice from the article.

Overall: This article needs an almost total overhaul to accurately and neutrally represent the state of knowledge on this subject.