User:HannahLH/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
1) Sustainable agriculture

2) Appropriate technology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
1) Because it is related to my PE org's sector.

2) Because it is related to my PE org's work.

Evaluate the article
1) The aspect I liked most about this article was its introductory sentence because it effectively and briefly overviewed the most important parts of the topic. I also appreciated the detailed "Definition" portion of the article and the picture included at the beginning.

Some suggestions I have for this article are:


 * The introduction is too short and doesn't offer a complete broad overview of the topic. This can easily be fixed by adding more information (and sources) to broaden the reader's initial understanding of the topic.
 * In the second paragraph of the introduction, the claim made in the last two sentences is not properly evidenced by the citation. This issue could be mitigated by adding additional reliable sources and possibly expanding on that idea.  Also, the phrasing could be improved as well (the tone fits that of an opinion rather than a fact).
 * This "History" Section was very brief. Maybe there could be more on the initial practices within this sector (in addition to where/when the term originated)?
 * The "Ethics" portion does not give the reader enough information and there is only one citation (the second/last sentence isn't even cited). This could be fixed by further research and more citing.
 * Without any information under the "Nutrients" header, it is unclear why this is included in this article. A short paragraph that includes the reasoning here would improve the overall article.
 * Overall, this is a really detailed article, it could just use a bit more flushing out in some areas.

2) I think this article gives a great neutral and succinct overview of the topic. However, there are a few things that could be improved upon:


 * I think that some information in the first part could be moved down under a subhead and better serve the overall article; the first three paragraphs have a lot of good information, but some of it might fit better elsewhere in the article.
 * I'm not sure the use of "overpopulating certain areas" is true in the "Health care" subhead under "Applications". It's not clear whether that quote is properly sourced.
 * The word "recent" was used in reference to sources published in 2011 (sources [17], [38], and [59]), should the year published replace "recent"?