User:Dkilleen/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biodiversity Monitoring Switzerland

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 chose this article because I wanted to read something about environmental impact. I found this article very interesting as it talks about the specie diversity and the development of biodiversity within Switzerland. I believe this article is important because it creates a clear outline of what the topics includes and how it is executed.

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 introduction is concise, but clearly states the topic and main points of the article. Information about the topic can be found in the first sentence of the introduction. Along with this, there is no extra information thrown in that isn't talked about later in the article; everything in the introduction is discussed later on.

Content: The authors content was extremely relevant as it highlighted, what, who, where, why and how. I would say that the the majority of the information cited is fairly up to date as the oldest source I found was from 2019. But there are some sources from 2014, 2010 and later dates that could be reevaluated to see if new information has surfaced. While reading I did not notice any information that felt out of place or in need of change. While I wouldn’t say that this topic is political or controversial, it is something that I haven't heard much about and was interesting to learn about.

Tone and balance: The article seems very neutral, simply stating the facts. It does not feel biased and covers many points to the topic, showing the readers that the author had a good, complete understanding of the topic and information. I would not say that this article incorporates "viewpoints" into the information, the author did a good job of sharing several key points of information without creating any biases or supporting one "viewpoint" more than an other. There are no points of persuasion, purely just cited information about the topic.

Sources and references: The author of this article used a multitude of sources. Every piece of information, from statistics to statements, there are sources that back up the claims. Most of the sources are recent, but some are from 8-12 years ago. As I stated above, I think reevaluating some of the information to see if there has been any updates would be beneficial to this article. The sources are from several different authors and sources, showing the diversity behind this information and the access individuals have to find out more about this topic. Along with these sources, there are also Swiss and European government official sources cited. The links worked!

Organization and writing quality: The article was very clear, concise, and formatted well. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors the couple times I read through it. It felt every easy to follow, making it easy to understand and comprehend the information. All of the sections reflected the major points talked about.

Images and media: While the article does include a few, well captioned pictures throughout, I do believe that a few more would helpful with enhancing understanding. Like I said above all the images are well captioned, and the placements are nicely thought out. I do believe that they fall within Wikipedias copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion: There aren't very many conversations happening on this articles talk page. I looks like only 1 individual has posted. This individual takes a deeper dive into the topics discussed, making connections, laying out new sources and more. This article is ranked as a C- class paper.

Overall impressions: This article is good, easy to read and has good supporting information. But I do believe that there could be more information added. The article itself is concise, making is very short, which for a quick read it os great but if you wanted good in-depth information, this article would not be the correct fit. To improve this article I believe it just needs more length and information. With the amount of sources and the new information found on the talk page, I believe a lot more could be added.