User:Es789716/Evaluate an Article

Evaluation of Horticultural Therapy Article (Evaluation for Writing for Biologists Class)

 * Horticultural Therapy: Horticultural therapy
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because I have an interest in the benefits that plants can provide to humans outside of their medicinal properties.

Lead
The lead does include an introductory sentence, and that sentence describes the articles topic. Some parts could be more concise than they are such as limiting the talk about the AHTA and its goals and providing more content on the definition of horticultural therapy itself. The lead is mostly definition but only revolving around one organization's definition of horticultural therapy. It almost sounds like a definition of the organization rather than a definition of the topic itself. It could be elaborated on that horticultural therapy existed before the AHTA. The only hint as to the rest of the articles topics is in the contents box. The lead includes the AHTA definition of Horticultural Therapy, which is not mentioned again in the article. And it includes a sentence on some of the AHTA's beliefs on the process of Horticultural Therapy. The lead is decently concise, however it could be improved I think.

Content
The articles' content is relevant and up to date, with research as recent as 2019 mentioned. The content seems underdeveloped, but all that is there seems fitting. Some points that could be fleshed out are: the treatment type section, the history section, and compacting and expanding the research section.

Tone and Balance

 * The article is decently neutral, however I did spy a few places where someone seemed to type their opinion and did not include a reference for it being a widely thought opinion.

Sources and References
There are a couple of statements that are not backed up by any evidence that I think should be. The sources that are used do appear to be thorough and reflect only some of the literature on the topic. the sources are current. The links are functional.II believe the references used are somewhat reliable, because there is a mix of primary sources, books, .edu webpages and .org webpages.

Organization

 * The article is not exceptionally well written. There are definitely grammar and some spelling errors. There are also places where the flow of the article seems off. The sections are well broken down and cohesive, but the formatting could be improved.

Images and Media

 * A few of the images enhance the understanding of the topic, some of them are just pictures of people and plants that are not very impactful. One is just of a green house which is not as relevant as it could be. The images are laid out rather simply, and more could be done to make them more engaging.

Checking the talk page

 * This article is part of two WikiProjects. it is rated as stub-class. I have not talked about this topic in a class, but the overall quality of the talk that is there seems constructive.

Overall impressions

 * This article was given stub-class by two WikiProject groups. The article's strengths are that it is easy to understand. I think it can be improved by added content and references, fixing the grammar and spelling, and providing a more engaging format. I would say that this article is underdeveloped and definitely has room for improvement. I would focus on filling out the content present, checking grammar and sentence structure, and potentially adding more to the history of therapeutic horticulture, because it has a fascinating history, as well as making sure the other sections are as filled out as I can personally make them.