User:Jlw14005/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Environmental science - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the article on Environmental science because I am very interested in the topic and I believe that it is an important topic for everyone to research at some point. My first impression of the article is that it is well written and provides the perfect amount of information for someone who does not know anything about environmental science but still wants a basic overview of the topic.

Evaluate the article
The Wikipedia article Environmental science is an unbiased, well-organized and accurate summary of a very complex topic. The article is written very clearly with no noticeable spelling or grammatical errors. The images are all organized in a manner that adds to the experience of the reader. The images are relevant to the topics they belong to and are placed in a manner that is visually appealing to the eye. They are interesting to look at, not distracting and the captions are well written and concise. The reader is able make their own assumptions on the importance of environmental science as the article is written in a factual manner. As the reader, it does not feel as though you are being sold an idea in which you are to believe. The article does a good job of explaining the important aspects of the subject without overstimulating the reader with a bunch of unnecessary anecdotes. There are thousands of examples of environmental issues over history and the topics chosen for explanation in the article are some of the key aspects of environmental science as a whole that help the reader understand the foundation of the topic. Throughout the entire article, each section is fairly touched upon without any sections being over or under explained; one topic is not discussed more than the next. A quick overview of the sources show that they are from reliable institutions such as academia, environmental organizations and famous books published by experts in the field. If the source happens to be an outside article not from research papers, universities etc., there are also a list of resources at the bottom of the article listing that articles particular sources, so you are always able to verify where the information was obtained. Every link works as intended. There is a good mixture of sources from a wide variety of places that only add to the credibility of the article; there are no “bad” or unreliable sources from random websites to cloud the information in the article. Since the article is about such a broad subject, the absence of peer-reviewed research papers is acceptable considering the topic does not contain any statistical data.

The article’s lead section is brief yet answers the number one consumer question of “What is environmental science and why is it important?” The lead sentence clearly and concisely defines the term “environmental science” without going into too much detail or providing the reader with too much information at once. There is a quick description of the contents of the article and does not include any unnecessary or irrelevant information. While there are some examples of issues within environmental science over history, I do feel as though the lead could benefit from a sentence or two describing more recent events as opposed to solely past events that kickstarted the environmental science movement. I do believe the lead could also benefit from mentioning how technology has impacted the progression of environmental science in the last decade. As a whole, the lead is a strong summary of the topic and all of its moving parts.

Overall, I enjoyed the article. It was a quick and easy-to-understand read. In regard to the contents of the article, I feel it is lacking. Environmental science is such a huge subject, and this article really does seem like a steppingstone. For example, I feel as though this article is missing very important environmental topics such as plant science. Forestry is touched upon briefly, but I feel needs its own sub-section. There is almost no mention of plant science (or even wildlife) throughout the entire article. This is a good article to read if you are looking for a summary of environmental science and its components but lacks the detail and length that it needs to become a deep dive of information. It is just not long enough. The information that is included in the article is important to the fundamentals of the subject itself, however; the article very much seems incomplete in my opinion. Each section, while touched upon equally, needs significantly more information and maybe even sub-sections. Also, the “Terminology” section seems to be a bit unnecessary. I would recommend adding the information in the “Terminology” section into a sentence or two in the lead or to the “Ecology” section entirely. The talk page seems to agree with my thoughts, going all the way back to 2005 and probably the conception of Wikipedia. The talk page also shows that there has not been much editing activity in recent years. I believe this is a good foundational article, but it desperately needs some work to become an all-inclusive, informational deep dive.