User:MrModal/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Global biodiversity

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose it because it is not uncommon for definitions and explanations of general science words/topics are often under-explained, which can make communicating the importance of more in depth subjects a lot more difficult, because the foundational knowledge might not be complete.

Evaluate the article
This article, while detailing an important yet somewhat speculative subject, there are also many confusing areas throughout the paper, particularly in regard to the numbers and percentages they reported. In the beginning, the article reports that the estimated current total number of species on Earth ranges from 2 million to 1 trillion, yet in the next sentence it states that the estimate is actually just 1 trillion. This is slightly confusing, because the reader might not know whether the "range" is more reliable or the 2016 study saying it is 1 trillion. Furthermore, the article revisits this statistic later down the page, yet in the later section the sentence reads that scientists "concluded" that there are 1 trillion species, adding to the confusion. The ambiguity of these statistics continues throughout most of the article. For example, the article states that there are currently 1.9 million described species, but upon checking the source, it actually stated that the number was around 1.75 million. I think heavy revisions to make sure that all the numbers presented are congruent and somewhat agreeable with each other would definitely help this article be more digestible. Also, in the section describing drivers that affect biodiversity, although they do a good job detailing the largest driver, the shortlist of other factors is not very detailed. I think possibly giving a sentence of explanation for each driver, as well as possibly including more nuanced, yet still heavily researched drivers like socio-economic status and systemic racism (like Schell et al. 2020) could really help readers understand the scope and connectivity of how multiple (seemingly unrelated) factors can all converge on biodiversity and create changes. Overall, I think the article is detailed, relatively well-cited, and informative. If improvements can be made to better describe the statistics and make the numbers presented more coherent, while also adding further detail about potential drivers of change in biodiversity, it will start turning into a really fine article.