User:Eliseforget/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Amazon rainforest - Wikipedia

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 to evaluate because I opened up the Academic Disciplines category and immediately went to the Biology and Ecology section because I knew I was comfortable with it. The Amazon Rainforest is very interesting and there has been a lot of knowledge spread about this ecosystem, so I thought it would be interesting. My choice matters because there are many times when someone will look up the Amazon rainforest and come upon this page, so if it needs improvement it should be done sooner or later. My first impression of the article was that it was very well completed and seems as though it is a very developed page. From my first look, the page looks very sophisticated.

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 in of the article was very detailed and I think a good introduction of the material that is presented. If anything, I think it may be too detailed, as it presents some of the facts that are then reiterated in other sections. However, the lead-in definitely presents the article's content in an easily understandable way.

The content in this article is definitely relevant, and I like how they added more information about the changes occurring in the Amazon due to climate change and deforestation, as these are major issues going on in the world. It is also very detailed in the specifics of the ecosystem, including plants, animals, and climate that are present there. If anything, the Etymology section is very brief and has little wording. If there were any way to add to that, like newer information or a more detailed representation, that would show more information.

The tone of this article is very neutral and unbiased, as it sounds very objective and informative. I do not believe that there is any point where the reader could be persuaded, as the article is mere facts. Along with this, the article has a wide selection of references used and further reading along with that if a reader is more curious. There are many citations in each paragraph, however, some links did not work. The editor also mentions many news articles in the article, which could potentially be biased. If a different source is used, the information would be more relevant and unbiased.

I think this article is organized very well, and the information provided is very well written. I did not find any spelling errors or grammatical errors when reading. The editor also provided many images of the rainforest itself and the plants and animals present there, which is very necessary and helpful. The images are kind of small, however, but easy to see and understand why they are in that specific section of the article.

Most of what was in the talk page was grammatical changes, like changing tense or preference over one word or citing a different article as a source. This article is B-class based on Wikipedia's standards, which is very good.