User:KeeLgd/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Arctic sea ice decline - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it a topic that is not heavily spoken about in the media, yet it has impacted a variety of marine life, plant life, and our environment when it comes to the rise in sea level. Learning about this topic is important because it shows how our actions have consequences. Visually seeing and reading the effects that climate change has caused yet little action done to help. Whether this action be covering it in the media or looking at alternatives to green energy. When it came to the polar ice caps and the melting of ice sheets in the Artic, I knew that the species inhabiting these areas such as penguins, seals, polar bears, etc. were suffering because their land was fading away and water temperatures were rising. I knew that climate change caused by greenhouse gases were contributors to the melting. I had made conclusions such as food would become harder to find, plant life on the sea ground would have to learn to adapt, and that some species that live upon the ice will migrate to areas that are more suitable for them.

Evaluate the article
I think that the leading section is very informative and is a summary of the whole article. Getting to the point of what causes the decline of artic sea ice as well as an example. I do think that it is overly detailed. The second paragraph talking about the region at its warmest seems like information that should instead go under observations or predictions. It contains information that goes beyond a simple summary of the article which some may find overwhelming or inconvenient if they simply want a quick statement. The content in this article is relevant because we can see if through satellite images, documentaries, and statistics. When looking at the sources and refences there are a couple that have been published within 1-2 years, but the majority need to be updated especially because it is still an ongoing topic. The article is neutral yet contains theories from multiple people about what percentage of the artic sea ice will be left by the end of a certain year. I do think that the "Individual Experts" subcategory seems unnecessary because each person mentioned states something different. It doesn't offer any additional information to the reader. When looking at how the article is organized, I think that there are some categories that should be rearranged. The observation category is good but the subcategories such as "Predicted onset of an ice-free summer", "Climate Models", and "Individual Experts" should be placed towards the end of the article. It's more important to state a summary, observations that we can see through data and images, how its cause, the environmental impact, then predictions. I think that the presentation of the article is good, the images are informative and not overwhelming. There's are a variety of sources that connect to other Wikipedia pages upon topics mentioned in the article. It is very useful and convenient to have sources connect to words such as sea ice, global warming, artic amplification, polar vortex, and artic ocean. When looking at the talk page improvements involving organization and updating sources are seen. I think that the articles strengths are the images and data as well as the variety of links for certain words. I think that the article could improve its organization and taking out unneeded information that wouldn't help the reader learn about the topic. I would access this article as being underdeveloped because a portion of the article just talks about future predictions rather than events that are happening currently also sources aren't updated which can create the possibility of some information becoming outdated and false.