User:Liss123456789/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I decided to evaluate the ecocriticism page on wikipedia.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think it is interesting seeing how the environment is discussed in literature and that has a huge impact on how people form opinions and find value in things they are not as connected to. It also sounds like it should have to do with critiquing the environment or discourse around it so I found it surprising that the page says it only has to do with literature.

Evaluate the article
There were a lot of sources discussing what ecocriticism is and how the term was coined as different "waves" of it highlighted certain things but I think it could have been sectioned better because there is a huge section defining it and the other section titled "In Literary Studies" feels like its again defining the genre of this literature.

There is little discussed of actual books and works of literature that would be considered part of ecocriticism which is something one user commented on in the talk page while most of the rest is just discussion of factuality of sources and importance of information. There seems to be a lot of attention to the page about a decade about but since 2015 not a lot has been done so it could be really interesting if it went more into how Silent Spring changed the way some writers approached topics and there is many more pieces of writing that could be valuable to this like adding information about Chicana writing on environment.

Its strengths is probably just the sheer number of sources defining and describing ecocriticism but there is not a lot of specifics on works and how they developed ecocriticism based on the authors focus. There are also no images and I feel like it could be linked to way more wiki articles as well especially since the page says "Other disciplines, such as history, economics, philosophy, ethics, and psychology, are also considered by ecocritics to be possible contributors to ecocriticism." I think because it lacks a lot of information about how interdisciplinary the literature actually is, that this does mean it underrepresents marginalized population's contributions and concerns. The article really only goes into specific works that are super mainstream like Silent Spring and Dickens.

It mostly just needs to be more specific about literature rather than the development of the actual term over time and would keep an audience better if it did this with added images in addition to having multiple smaller sections.