User:Lamnguyen25/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_science

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 find science topics interesting to explore their significance to people. I specifically chose the Environmental Science article, to understand and learn aspects about the topic that I may not have heard before. My preliminary impression of the article was that it has lots of information that provides details about what environmental science is, its role in history, and how it has slowly evolved over the centuries. There were a lot of images that helped me understand and visualize what I was learning, as I was reading each section of the article. Overall, the organization and the content presented in the article were impeccable.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article's introduction paragraph was very detailed and gave a lot of information about what environmental science is, but it did feel like there was a lot of information that could have been shortened. The topic was clear and concise in its introduction but needed a briefer summary introduction. The lead did include a brief description of the article's major sections that touched upon them but did not explicitly state each section. However, the information provided in the lead doesn't include information that is not mentioned in the article. The content is relevant to the topic and is up to date mentioning the 21st century. I would say that there is not any information that is missing or does not belong. Also, there does not seem to be any gaps in the information and the article goes into the historical aspects that environmental science has been involved in. The tone and balance of the article give a neutral impression and bias is not present. The viewpoints are a bit overrepresented in each section but not underrepresented. As mentioned before, there wasn't any bias present, which suggests that there isn't any persuasion to get the reader to believe a certain way. In terms of the references, all of them work and are current, reliable, relevant, sources that contribute to the article's content. I did find some other sources that work well with the topic of environmental science and could have improved the delivery of the article. The organization of the article was structured well, and the only criticism is that there is too much information that overwhelms the reader. There were no grammatical errors, and the sections were easy to understand. The images themselves are relevant to the article and it enhances the understanding of environmental science. Showing images of people, space, marine life, and landscapes, all contribute to each of the sections presented within the article's content. All of those images also adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The page discussions mainly involved people addressing their concerns about sections having an excessive amount of information and a lack of information that could have been integrated within certain sections. I also saw some people express their opinions about the images that were used and how they could have been better images that could have been used. This article is rated fairly well and is a part of a few Wiki Projects. Comparing how we discuss Wikipedia and this article on Wikipedia; we talked about how Wikipedia articles need to include sections that are related to the topic and provide reliable information that the reader can access. I don't see any differences that demonstrate our understanding of Wikipedia and this article. My only suggestion is that this article would condense and shorten its information to make it understandable and clear for the reader to comprehend the content being presented. My overall impressions are that this article is generally well done in its goal of presenting the topic of environmental science. It has good information and images to complement each other, and the completeness of the article is overly developed. The article can be improved by removing extra information that could clutter the sections of content. Other than that, this was a great Wikipedia article that introduced the topic of environmental science.