User:LandonA77/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ecological footprint

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 wanted to find an article centered around people and the environment. Humans have made a large impact, mostly bad, impact on the environment. I think it's important that we understand the impact we have. I was intrigued by the map of the world focuses on each countries ecological footprint.

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.)

Lead Section: Contains a clear and concise sentence to describe ecological footprint. Each following sentence becomes more specific and describes many aspects surrounding the topic. After the main introductory paragraphs, it includes an overview section as well.

Content: All content is relevant to the topic. Most references have come from within the last ten years, however, there are some very old articles that came from the early 90's and one was even from 1974. I'm not knowledgeable about ecological footprints, so I'm unsure if there is any missing content, but it everything that was discussed seemed relevant to the topic. In terms of equity gaps, information was given that the UN uses data from around the world and over 200 nations, so it's trying to be as inclusive as possible to get the best picture.

Tone and Balance: The article gives a neutral stance that gives only facts and even includes a section from the opposing side and their critiques of the ecological footprint. One section, Ecological footprint at the individual level was underrepresented. More information could have been given here.

Sources and References: Most sources are from within the last ten years, with some older than fifteen years. I would deem it acceptable for this page being up to date, but removing some of these citations for a more up to date one wouldn't be a bad idea either. There was one instance of a citation not given, and some citations came from weren't a primary source at all. Some of these sources came from the New York Times and Sunday Herald. I found two links that led to nonexistent pages or wouldn't load to begin with. All facts within the article were backed up with a citation.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written and easy to understand. I didn't notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was organized into major sections to divide up the content so the reader is able to know what the main topic of that section is about.

Images and Media: Images are included off to the side and are tied to the sections they are a part of, leading to an easier reading experience. The images themselves help to describe a section or are supplementary to the facts given. Images are cited and give credit to the creator. Images are well-captioned and easy to understand.

Talk Page Discussion: Most conversations revolve around external links and including citations. There is also discussion of off-topic content that doesn't pertain to the topic of ecological footprints. This topic is a part of Wikiprojects that focus on economics, environment, sustainability and sociology.

Overall Impressions: The article is pretty good, and doesn't need any major revisions or additions. The content it includes mostly up to date, and old citations should be updated. All facts are given a citation, allowing for easy access to all sources. Everything is described clearly and concisely. All sections are well developed and provide a neutral stance as to not persuade the reader. One section, Ecological footprint at the individual level is under-developed and could be added to describe a person's individual impacts depending on where they live in the world.