User:Jdgoffard/Evaluate an Article

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

Nature reserve

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 am interested in learning about nature reserves. Nature reserves are important for ecological conservation, something that is important in today's world, with all of the natural habitat destruction. During a preliminary scan of the article, the introduction is thorough, and there are lots of headings to discuss nature preserves in different countries.

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 first sentence states the other terms that could be used to refer to a nature reserve. Then the following sentence gives a brief description of what a nature preserve is. The article describes what nature reserves do, how there are varying levels of protection, as well as the governing bodies. The introduction is short and detailed.

Regarding content, the article is very information heavy in some places and light in others. There is a brief into, a brief history, and then the "Around the world" section is very long. This section describes nature reserves in a plethora of different countries. This article does not address equity gaps or historically underrepresented populations. The content seems up to date, it may be missing information about the politics surrounding nature reserves and the conflicting agendas of nature conservation vs. building new developments.

The article is neutral. At no point is the article arguing for the importance of nature reserves and stressing protection.

The sources cited are strong. Some of the sources are the websites of conservation programs in different countries, such as the Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society. These sources are not peer reviewed like journal articles, but experts in the field build these sites. More notable sources are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. To make the article stronger, academic articles should be used. Most of the sources are from 2016/2017, which is 7 to 8 years old.

The formatting and structure is clear and easy to follow. There are numerous images with short captions, which is good. The images are well dispersed.

The article is rated C-class. On the talk page there is some debate about it being appropriate for "Nature conservancy" to redirect to this article. Wikipedians leave suggestions and add comments when they want things edited or have edited stuff. This article is under developed.

Overall, the article is successful at providing an overview of nature reserves, but could use some work at spreading out the types of information.