User:KameronSch/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Ecovillage (Ecovillage - Wikipedia):
 * Article Evaluation: Start-Class
 * Critique: The lead section is good but leaves out one of the major sections so it could use more detail. There is missing content to this article that readers may want such as the design/architecture, social dynamics, educational initiatives, challenges/criticism. Most of the content is focused on history and neglects the rest of the subtopics like environmental impact and governance. It is written in a neutral point of view and has reliable sources; the most recent source is from 2022. The sources are from peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books but there will need to be more references once the other sections are added. The article is well-written but one of their images does not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00537-9 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1481021 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1348342

Option 2

 * Sustainable architecture (Sustainable architecture - Wikipedia):
 * Article Evaluation: Start-Class (vital article)
 * Critique: The lead section easily identifies the topic but does not include a description oof the articles major sections. The lead section is oversimplified and could use more information as to what goes into this topic. This article has some important aspects to this topic, but it leaves out a lot of other relevant information that should be covered. The sustainable energy use section mentions passive design and systems efficiency but fails to address automation systems that optimizes energy. I think it could also use sections about sustainable building rating systems, challenges, cost, future trends and successfully recognized sustainable architecture projects. The tone is neutral with reliable sources but in a few sections, citations are needed for the facts they are claiming. It is well written, but the organization is lacking subheadings, so it is easier to follow along. All the images have good captions and enhance the topic, but some sections could use more images. The talk page discussion was interesting about overlapping topics like green building, someone said this "article is way off track" and some now deleted sections were self-promoting. :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1732781 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120012 https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2019.1569249 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360903148174 :

Option 3

 * Sustainable gardening (Sustainable gardening - Wikipedia):
 * Article Evaluation: Start-Class
 * Critique: I found the lead section to be very poorly written the article references information that is not present in the article that also should not be included and does not include anything about the proceeding major sections. The content is relevant to the topic but needs many more aspects that go into sustainable gardening. Other content that could be included would be history, innovations, benefits, methods/techniques, education/outreach initiatives and furthering expanding on the existing section of measuring site sustainability. The tone is fine but the whole paper could use more reliable resources as it only has 4, one of which that is outdated. The images included are odd and I think different media could be used to better enhance the topic. The talk page discussed removal of irrelevant material and unsourced material. Overall, I am surprised that this article is rated as a start-class and not stub-class. :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.655493 https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718x19856378 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.716412 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2019.06.155 :

Option 4

 * Corporate sustainability (Corporate sustainability - Wikipedia)
 * Article Evaluation: Start-Class
 * Critique: The lead section is very misleading and seems like the article is going in a different direction and once you read the contents it doesn't match up. This implication is discussed in the talk page "The first sentence in the lede makes it sound that way. But I'm under the impression that "sustainability" as a buzzword is about a range of policies, not just environmental ones" which is an issue the article still contains it needs to be more concise and explanatory in the lead section. The content is all over the place and I think it is this way because the topic wasn't clearly defined in the lead section. More content needs to be added and the existing content needs expansion. Some subtitles have content that shouldn't be included under it. This article does address " Diversity, Equity and Inclusion" but only has one sentence explaining this section. It is not well-written and includes a spelling error, "Diveristy" instead of diversity and doesn't maintain consistency in capitalizing some paragraphs while others are not. The tone is natural but does a poor job at balancing the article and the organization is hard to follow. Not all the facts are backed up by citations and more relevant sources could be added but for the most part the sources are peer reviewed. There is one image included and it looks like a stock image with a random caption that I don't think follows copyright regulations. There isn't much to the talk page, but the one comment is confused about this page's topic and its contents. I would rate this article a stub-class not start-class since it lacks a lot of meaningful content. :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.35 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02933-7 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2650 :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.35 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2560 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-02933-7 https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2650 :

Option 5

 * Micro-sustainability (Micro-sustainability - Wikipedia):
 * Article Evaluation: Stub-Class
 * Critique: The lead section does a pretty good job at describing the articles topic, but I think could use more about the article's major sections. The content is well-done and is relevant to the topic, I think there could be more added to the history section and expansion of the individual actions. The missing content within this article would be sections about the principles, benefits, policy/advocacy, potential barriers and solutions to those barriers. The tone is neutral, and balance of the article is good. The sources provided are relevant and reliable from peer-reviewed sources, but some dates might be out of date at this point. I'm not sure if it is an issue but one source is used for three different citations so maybe there could be more diverse references added. The images added are fine, but the captions aren't cited and do not follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I would add more relevant images to enhance this article. The talk page doesn't have any comments but mentions this article has been used as a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment three different times. I am surprised this article is evaluated at a stub-class; I think it should be rated as a start-class. :
 * Sources: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3513 https://doi.org/10.3390/su3122456 :