User:Jwholme4/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bog?section=2

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this because I do not know the difference between a bog and a marsh, so I am using this to know more about bogs.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section describes a bog in a concise manner, and provides examples on how it differs from other types of wetlands. It does not contain a description of the sections, which would benefit the reader.

Content

There are instances such as in the Types section that do not contain adequate citation, nor information such as with citation 17. Roughly half of the sources come from within the past decade, the rest from over 20+ years ago. This is not necessarily bad. The ecology and protection section is confusing, I would make those two topics their own sections. The By Nutrient Content section could use links to examples of the types of bogs. These are simply defined, coming from one source therefore they should be expanded with pictures or description. The uses section goes into an appropriate amount of detail, however some renaming would do the article good. I would rename "Other uses" to ecological importance.

Tone and Balance

This article does not reflect any obvious bias, however it draws heavily on northern examples of bogs, and is lacking in information on bogs in the southern hemisphere.

Organization and Writing Quality

This article could use some revision in wording particularly in the lead section. The first paragraph here seems to focus too much on other names for bogs, when defining aspects of bogs should be listed first to give the reader an idea of the nuance of this topic. Then the first two paragraphs in the Types section could be built upon, they are rather small and should provide the reader with more insight as to what defines different bogs. Same with the nutrient content subsection, as previously mentioned.

Overall Impressions

This article has some areas for improvement such as including more links to back up claims mainly at the beginning of certain sections such as Types section, these links were inaccessible and focused on very specific aspects of one of the types, it should have been a hyperlink instead of a source. This article was well written but some cosmetic upkeep would benefit the reader such as placing images in the right section, and renaming subsections.