User:Jupiter2457/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ecocriticism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I feel as though there is room for improvement as the article only has 3 sections which are not broken into any sub sections.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:


 * The first sentence is wordy and hard to understand from a non-scholars perspective.
 * However, this section does do a good job of briefly introducing the next two sections.
 * There is information in the first paragraph such as "ASLE".
 * The information is concise.

Content:


 * The content of the article is relevant.
 * The content is a little outdated as the mention of the 2000s is very brief at the end of the article.
 * There is a good deal of content about the literacy studies however, I think this could be broken up into subsections to guide the reader through.
 * This page does not address any equality gaps.

Tone and Balance:


 * The tone is neutral.
 * There are no biased claims
 * All views points have equal representation on the page.
 * The fringe viewpoints are explored and explained.
 * The article does not hold any position and only presents factual information.

Sources and Reference:


 * There are numerous secondary sources throughout the article
 * Most of the sources are pre 2000s however there are 20% of the sources are up to date.
 * The sources are mainly written by white people.
 * These links work.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * The article is a little difficult to understand in some sections the information presented is not straight forward.
 * There are no images on this page.
 * The article is well organized with 3 main sections, however I believe the last section could be broken into some subsections.

Images and Media:


 * There are no imaged in this article

Talk page Discussion:


 * There are a lot of proposed changes on the talk page from different users
 * This article is a part of the WikiProject Literature
 * This topic discusses more literature then it does real life application.

Overall:


 * The article does a good job of keeping things conscious, however the wording can sometimes be confusing for people who are new to the topics.
 * The article's last section needs to be broken into smaller subsections, and some of the suggested edits should be incorporated into the article.
 * I think the article should be updated more before I would consider it to be fully complete.