User:Mitmcclosk/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Productivity (ecology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to edit because I am comfortable with the subject. Productivity (in terms of ecology) is something that I have talked about in course in reference to both terrestrial and aquatic systems. This Article is very short, so I thought I maybe able to make some sort of substantial contribution to it. There is only one sentence on Primary production, and then a second very short section on secondary production. There is also no media and only three sources. There are many unexplored fascists of production that are not covered ion this article. Things that could be expanded; How is it measured? how is it affected by climate change? where does the most production happen on earth? Is there only one sentence worth of info on primary production?

Lead section
The lead includes a clear topic sentence but that is about it. There isn’t enough content in the article to warrant an outline. While concise and on point, the article overall is so short it couldn’t be anything but concise.

Content
The content is what the article conveys. There is no content that doesn’t belong but there is a significant amount that could be added (see above). There is a small amount about primary and secondary production. There are no media files. Sections that are included could be expanded. I would really like to see a more thorough explanation of what is already there in combination with an expansion into further discussion. Maybe a discussion on different habitats or the affect of climate change on production. What other factors of ecology are influence by productivity.

Tone and Balance
Again, the incompleteness of the article makes it difficult to draw out a tome or balance. Overall very neutral. If I had to give a tone top the article it would be short and sterile. Some pictures, media, and examples would be great.

Sources and References
While there are three cited sources two of the cited sources are form the same database (FishBase). All sources are from before 2010 and could be updated. Overall, the number of sources used will be increased through expansion of the article. Also, I will look for more current sources.

Organization and writing quality
The organization and quality of what is written is clear. Adding more will require the addition of both sub sections and additional sections.

Images and Media
Disappointingly so, there is no images or media in the article. Even with what is already in the articled there could be a great addition in a picture of one of the explained methods of collection.

Talk page discussion
There is no comments or discussion on the talk page. Although two organizations have ranked this article as Stub-Class and of high importance.

Overall impressions
This is an important article and deserves more attention than it has received in the past. I think I will need to identify what scope I want to work with the article on. I could delve into many details of this broad topic,m but want to have a succinct display of the information.