User:Lithopslover/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Functional ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because I find the topic of functional ecology a very interesting approach to studying ecosystems. This view of ecosystems can be valuable in both understanding the roles held by the organisms within them, the relative impact of organisms' roles, and can even be applied to making decisions related to ecological restoration projects. My first impression is pleasantly surprised by the range of topics introduced, but with some edits I believe it can be made stronger.

Evaluate the article
Here are some comments you might consider (feel free to disregard!):

Lead Section:


 * Clear and concise first two introductory sentences
 * The lead section, as I interpreted it, doesn't have a brief description of the major topics that are discussed in the article (History, Functional Diversity, Applications, etc.). Perhaps a more clear introduction to the topics addressed can be added to the second paragraph of the lead section.
 * On a similar note, the second paragraph of the lead section mentions evolutionary biology and evolutionary ecology but doesn't explicitly discuss it below so perhaps a section describing the relevance to that topic can be added.


 * Some grammar notes to consider for Lead section:
 * "... measured in two ways – the first being screening, which involves measuring a trait across a number of species, and the second being empiricism, which provides quantitative relationships for the traits measured in screening." perhaps changing the end to "...which quantifies the traits measured in screening"? If that is what was meant by the sentence because it is a little unclear.
 * "...particularly in response to the rapid global changes occurring in earth's environment." perhaps delete "...occurring in earth's environment" because its a little redundant, or if you decide to keep it capitalize Earth.

Content:


 * The most recent part of the history section references the 2000s; is there anything of significance in the field more recently? Just a thought to consider.
 * As mentioned earlier, perhaps a section on its relevance to evolutionary ecology/biology would be an appropriate addition.

Tone and Balance:


 * Perhaps the use of the word "Unsurprisingly" in the Impact on Ecosystem Health section sounds a bit like they are biased or trying to persuade the reader; although it may be unsurprising to some.
 * The minority viewpoint of diversity decreasing an ecosystem's productivity was discussed as such and the details of the experiment were explained in an appropriately concise manner.
 * However, on a related note, the paragraph in which the "widely supported" view was described (under the Impacts on Ecosystem Health first paragraph), only one source was used to defend those arguments and additionally that same source was used to question the minority viewpoint so perhaps some more evidence would strengthen the content.

Sources and References:


 * There is support provided by peer-reviewed research articles published in trustworthy journals. However, the paragraphs would be strengthened if most were supported by more than one (preferably multiple) sources.
 * Does reference 1 have a link to its respective online location for checking its reliability?
 * Including more references in years since 2017 would improve quality of the support.

Organization and writing clarity:


 * "However, these results are expected to underestimate the actual relationshipm impling that large space and time scales coupled with diverse resources are more than necessary to sustain an ecosystem." -In this sentence, there is a  typo in the word "relationship", and "implying" is misspelled.
 * I feel that the Scaling section and the second paragraph of the Species Detection and Classification section are very similar looking at different scales, perhaps they can be combined or worked into the same section? Just an idea.
 * "While functional arguments for reintroduction of extinct species, may paint thoughtful reintroduction as an ecological boon, the ethical and practical debate over de-extinction has not left functional approaches unscathed." - Deleting the comma between "...species, may..." is grammatically correct.
 * "These arguments suggest that reintroducing an extinct species could be drastically harm an ecosystem if conclusions about its function or the functions of the species it is intended to replace are incorrect." - Deleting the word "be" in "...could be drastically harm..." would make the sentence make more sense.
 * "Additionally, even if an extinct species' function is well understood de-extinction could be equally harmful if the function served by the extinct species is no longer needed by the ecosystem." - Comma needed in between "understood" and "de-extinction".

Images and Media:


 * The image used was captioned well, follows copyright regulations, and is relevant to the topic; However, I'd consider including more images to highlight other species in relation to this topic.

Talk page:


 * I could not find the talk page - perhaps I just need more practice navigating the "Wiki world".

Overall impressions:


 * I agree with the banner at the top of the article that it would be improved by including more citations and sources to defend the content within.
 * The article was strong in its range of topics and its conciseness in discussing topics.
 * It could further be improved by including more images, perhaps changing the wording to be more clear and fixing grammatical errors/ confusion throughout.
 * I believe this page can be further developed by including some examples and case studies.