User:Keodonne/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nature therapy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I found the topic of nature therapy interesting. I had known the benefits of nature, but was not aware that it was a specific technique or treatment. Nature therapy is important because it allows those who participate in it to elevate their mental and physical health. Benefits of nature therapy include reduced stress levels and relaxation. My initial impressions of the article is that it is not fully completed and does not have a lot of information.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead section is concise and gives a good introduction of the articles topic. However, it does not summarize everything that the article talks about because it does not mention the history of nature therapy which is a section of the article.

Content: The content of the article is sporadic. The history section only mentions one area that nature therapy was used and doesn't exactly relate to the article at hand.

Tone: The tone is academic and fits the required tone of Wikipedia.

Sources and References: There are a lot of great peer-reviewed articles within the sources. Each statement is backed up with a relevant sources and there's many statements that are supported by two citations. There is one piece of information that could be classified as subjective that is cited by a source.

Organization and writing quality: The article is broken down into sections that makes it easy to read. I believe that this is a well-organized article. However, the writing quality is less than stellar. It lacks conciseness and redundant.

Images and Media: There are no images.

Talk page discussion: The talk page has a lively conversation about the lack of depth within the article. The article itself is contested to be deleted.

Overall impressions: The topic is relevant and an interesting take; however, the article lacks serious depth and ability to convey a comprehensive view of nature therapy. I believe that the article should be kept, but revised heavily.