User:Fonzi9028/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Human impact on marine life

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it directly relates to our course, Marine Microbiology, but steps slightly out of the scope and considers the human impact on this very field. I found this interesting to consider as at times when studying science, scientists become detached and forget to remember that their actions often have impacts on the thing they are studying. At first look this article seems quite dense and covers a quite diverse collection of impacts, however the organization seems to be slightly lacking.

Lead section
This lead section does include an introductory paragraph which explains the articles topic in a consider and clear manner. It does not however include brief descriptions on the major sections and could include a better summary of the main ideas of this article. It does not seem to have any extra information not present elsewhere in the article. And overall the lead section is not overly detailed and concise on the few things it decides to cover and it could definitely summarize more.

Content
The article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is mostly up-to-date, however most of the articles are 2019 and prior and therefore could definitely be updated. The content does not seem to be unrelated and I wouldn't say there is content missing either. As this article is more focused on the impacts on marine life, its purpose is not so much to address equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
The article is overall neutral however, some implicit bias leaks in in some areas as it fails to address human efforts to reverse these human impacts and therefore is a very negative outlook on all. Therefore, I would say the negative impacts are not necessarily overrepresented however I would say the positive impacts are most definitely underrepresented.

Sources and References
The sources and references seem to be done well. Everything is cited and most things have multiple sources. The sources could definitely be more updated to be more current. Almost all the references however are primary and secondary research articles and due to the nature of this topic I believe this is the correct format of resources.

Organization and writing quality
The writing is clear and professional and is fit into sections that make sense and are clear to understand. I have not spotted any grammatical or spelling errors in the article and would overall claim that it is well organized as a whole.

Images and Media
The article includes many relevant images which help increase overall understanding. These pictures are well captioned and cited and seem to adhere to copyright regulations.

Talk page discussion
The talk page is considering a possible bias for an editor and this seems to be an area of importance. The article is part of four WikiProjects: marine life, environment, fisheries and fishing and microbiology.

Overall impressions
Overall this is a good article for such a large encompassing topic. Overall, tis article can be improved by starting off with a better summary and by incorporating newer resources as newer work on this topic is continuing to be done and there is room for updates. Ultimately, this is a well developed article with still some room to grow.