User:Ilk12/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Climate ethics

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 it is about climate ethics - an extension of environmental ethics, which was discussed extensively in our most recent readings. Climate ethics matters because we are currently living in a pivotal and volatile period of time where humans should be cognizant of the way they interact with their surroundings. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was written similar to an argumentative essay, as opposed to other wikipedia articles that are written in an “encyclopedic style” (as referenced in the warning banner).

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 leading section of this article is relatively strong - the introductory sentence concisely defines the concept of climate ethics in a way that is comprehensible to readers. The lead itself briefly describes primary themes of the article without disclosing a superfluous amount of information. The article’s content is relevant to its topic, but it seems as though facets are missing (for example, climate ethics apropos to current events aren’t included). However, the “See also” and “References” sections include links to additional subjects. The content is up-to-date in the sense that it was last edited around four months ago, but the talk page hasn’t been utilized since last year, and only intermittently prior to then. While the article isn’t necessarily biased, it is written in a style and tone similar to that of an argumentative essay. The warning banner urges editors to edit it geared towards an “encyclopedic style” which would be more appropriate and effective. The sources are current, reliable, and independent. The links provided work but there could be more sources included to generate a more comprehensive study on climate ethics. The article is well organized but the writing itself is slightly convoluted and difficult to read. Some sentences seem fragmented and the punctuation used isn’t always correct. The article does not include any images. Conversations in the talk page consist of external link modifications and pushes for a more thorough coverage of the topic. This article is part of four WikiProjects: environment, climate change, energy, and ethics - all of which are rated “start-class.” Overall, the article’s information is germane to the topic, but the quality of writing should be improved and more information should be added.