User:Msaputo1228/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Human ecology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It is interesting to me to see the effect that humans have on their environment, and making strides within the field of human ecology can benefit all of humanity in terms of being able to live on the quickly depleting planet.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead's introductory statement clearly states the definition of human ecology.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is no brief description of the major sections touched upon in the article. There is instead just another sentence that states other fields that are affected by human ecology.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything in the Lead is mentioned in the Content of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise, but perhaps too concise since it does not describe the major sections in the rest of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content is certainly relevant to the topic of human ecology.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is up-to-date and is still being edited today. The most recent edit was on January 19, which was a section edit to the Historical Development section.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * All the sections are relevant to the topic and do not seem out of place.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, there is no biased opinions or tones.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There do not appear to be any biased claims.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints are overrrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * There is no persuasive tone being used in this article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are no further citations needed.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes they do, but there are most likely more current sources available.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most of the sources can most likely be updated, as the most current source is from 2013, and the oldest one is from 1866.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Certain sections are concise and some are not. The Historical Development section is too long and can probably be separated into multiple sections. There could be a section about terminology, a section about Linneaus and Darwin, and another section about academic history
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Certain sections can be reorganized. The Historical Development section can have some subheadings.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are only 2 images, but they do provide good context for their respective sections.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions could be bolstered a bit.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, there is no copyright infringement.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes they are visually appealling.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is one conversation about taking material from the Ecology wikipedia page and adding some of it to this page. The other things in the talk page are links to external readings and notes about the topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This is a C-class article with high importance. This article is part of the Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Environment, and Ecology WikProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia discusses this topic more based solely on an understanding of the facts, whereas we use facts to form a hypothesis and make arguments. The article has no stance on human ecology or human influence in the environment.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * This is a C-class article with high importance.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It provides a lot of information on the history of human ecology, gives a good general overview of the topic, and explains its applications to other fields of study.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The section on Historical Development can be reduced or broken up into multiple sections. Also the content of the subsections in the Interdisciplinary Approaches section seems random and unnecessary.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well-developed but certainly can use imporvement in some sections.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: