User:Kw9793/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Trophic state index

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have heard the term "oligotrophic" used to describe certain bodies of water, and I was curious to see exactly what it meant. The trophic state index of a body of water is determined by the biogeochemistry and physics of the body of water and surrounding watershed, and thus draws on many of the topics we discuss in class. This article covers a handful of subtopics that are relevant to the main article with variable efficacy. It has a good foundation but could use some major revisions.

Lead Section
This is one of the better sections of the article. The opening sentence succinctly describes the topic. A short list describes the different trophic classifications with specific names and parameters. A brief explanation of what drives trophic state index is also given. Reading this section alone provides a decent overview of the topic.

Content
The content of the article seems to cover most of the important points, but nothing is presented in great depth. A reader could come looking for a basic understanding of trophic state index and ten minutes later leave with most of what they need to know. This does not seem like a rapidly evolving topic, so the material is reasonably up to date. Many of the references were published in the last decade or so as well. One major oversight is that there are very few examples of classifications for actual bodies of water, and the ones that do appear are obscure. This topic is not well-posed to cover an equity gap, so it gets a pass there.

Tone and Balance
By its nature, this is not a controversial or hotly debated topic. However, the tone starts to become more informal after the first paragraph. Unsubstantiated opinions are given about the best way to quantify the index (e.g. "chlorophyll will probably yield the most accurate measurements").

Sources and References
Many of the facts presented in the article do not have references to back them up. The facts seem plausible, but they are unsubstantiated. Of the references that are provided, most are from peer-reviewed journals, academic texts, and government reports. The sources span a time frame of 1958 to the present, with many published within the last 10-20 years. One of the references for dissolved oxygen is from a company website that sells environmental observing equipment--this is a strange choice.

Organization and writing quality
While the overall organization of the article makes sense, much of the writing in subsections is all over the place. Non-sequiturs are dropped in at random, and much of the content feels like it's missing a through-line. Luckily, the sections are relatively short so there are not paragraphs and paragraphs to get tangled up in. There is also an inconsistency to how subsections are used; topics at an even organizational level appear at different levels of subdivision. A few of the sections and subsections near the end are quite sparse.

Images
Only three images are used in the article, and only one of them is illustrative of what it attempts to portray. The other two are just generic pictures of lakes that don't point to any sort of trophic level index. All are licensed under Creative Commons.

Talk page
The talk page is not very active. Three discussion topics are open and range in date from 2011 to 2018. It is entertaining though. Someone wrote an article-length argumentative comment about how the original author shouldn't have merged a bunch of smaller articles to form this one (the smaller articles now form the logical subsections of the main article). The original author made a snarky reply. In a separate thread, someone is trying to inject their own niche research into the main narrative. The article is rated C-class and mid-importance in the Limnology and Oceanography WikiProject.

Overall impressions
The article has the foundation of a good contribution to Wikipedia. The broad organization and lead section work well, and little extraneous information is included throughout. The sources that are used are timely and reliable. However, much of the writing could use heavy editing and many sources need to be added to back up all of the reported facts. In addition, more content should be added. For example, how trophic level index relates to chemistry, biology, ecology, cultural and economic status, and modern trends/human impacts could improve the article. Judging by the talk page, I don't think much will change in the short term.