User:JoshuaERS/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Environmental studies

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am choosing this article (as it exists on May 18th, 2022) because it is relevant to this course. Analyzing the relationship between Environment and War, I believe, would fall under Environmental Studies. Furthermore, we are in the midst of a climate crisis. If we are to address this, we must do so on good information. Environmental studies is a school of thought dedicated to providing that good information, and so in that sense it matters for the survival of our species. My preliminary impression of the article was that it is way too short. The content of the article appears to be mostly fine, though expansion is needed.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The first sentence clearly and concisely describes the articles topic. The lead section does not include a brief description of the article’s sections. While it describes the subject and some points on education, it omits the history section. All information in the lead is relevant to the article. Compared to the rest of the article the lead is overly detailed. Some points on education in the lead could be moved to the education section. However when considering that the rest of the article is likely incomplete, the size of the lead will likely have to grow to include the other sections that will be added.

Content

The articles content is relevant to the topic, though there is a serious lack of content when compared to other disciplines (for example, the physics article). The content present in the article is up do date, though more content needs to be added to reflect the progression of the field. There is a substantial amount of content missing. The history section needs to be expanded; especially to include Indigenous knowledge and teachings on the field of Environmental studies. A philosophy section should be added to touch on the general ways of thinking that Environmental Studies aims to promote. There should be a core theories section that touches on some of the most prevalent/important teachings/findings of environmental studies. Given that environmental studies is an interdisciplinary field, a relation to other fields section should be added to touch on these intersections. Furthermore, a research section should be added to touch on the past and current research that has been or is being done. The lead will also need to be expanded to accommodate these new sections. This article has the opportunity to address one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps, but it currently does not. Indigenous voices can and should be included in this article, especially given the historical contribution of Indigenous peoples to the field of environmental studies.

Tone and Balance

The article’s tone is neutral; there aren’t any claims present that appear to be biased towards a particular side of a given debate. Indigenous viewpoints are underrepresented given their historical contribution to the field; though this may be a product of the article being generally incomplete. I could not identify any minority or fringe viewpoints in the article. It does not appear to persuade the reader into adopting any particular position.

Sources and References

Many of the claims are backed up by a secondary sources, though not all of them are. For example the article states that “There are many Environmental Studies degree programs, including a Master’s degree and a Bachelor’s degree.” Though this is somewhat common sense it should still be supported by a source to keep up with Wikipedia standards. There are a few sentences like this throughout the article. The sources are varied in terms of when they were released with some as old as the 1950’s and some as new as 2022. However they absolutely do not reflect the available literature on the subject. There is so much content from the field of environmental studies and this is not showcased in the sources for the article. There also are not enough academic sources despite these sources being readily available from the field. Many of the sources rely on websites like “collegeboard.” This is not an accredited journalistic institution, government source, or academic finding and as such its accuracy is not guaranteed. While most of the links work, some do not. For example the citation below claims to link to collegeboard but actually links to a website called roadtripnation:

"Environmental Studies College Degree Programs | The College Board". bigfuture.collegeboard.org. Retrieved 12 April 2020

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is reasonably well-written. Most of the sentences are concise and clear, and I could not find any grammatical errors. It is well-organized, though the entire organization of the article will need to be revamped to accommodate the necessary additions described in the content section.

Images and Media

There aren’t any images in the article. As the article grows images should be added to visually reinforce the content of the article in an aesthetically appealing way. For example, if a research section is added, and research regarding a given rainforest is mentioned in that section; a picture of that rainforest should be provided beside the paragraph where it is mentioned.

Talk Page Discussion

There is some early talk (from 2006 and 2014) about merging this article with other articles, but that has not happened for reasons that I agree with. There is also some discussion about modification to links, which appears to be reasonable. Further modification will be needed as some links are incorrect (like the one previously mentioned in Sources and References). There is some more talk about adding more credible sources or expanding the article to include more recent developments in the field, but they mostly have not gone any ware. The article is rated as a stub and is part of: WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Education, and WikiProject Higher education. I would suggest adding it to the climate change WikiProject as well, given the relevance of this field to climate change. Most of the discussion in the article is centred around whether it should be merged with other articles, general comments about formatting/neutrality, and whether or not new sources should be added. I don’t feel like there is enough relevant discussion to compare with how the subject is talked about in class.

Overall impressions

The article’s overall status is incomplete/underdeveloped. It has a long way to go, but the foundation is mostly sound. Outside of a few link errors what is present in the article appears to be accurate and relevant. The article needs to be expanded on (as per the recommendations in the Content section of this review) to match the standards of other articles about academic disciplines. The links also need to be checked and incorrect links need to be replaced. It would take much tender love and care; and many content additions with relevant academic sources, for me to be able to recommend this article to anyone interested in learning about environmental studies.