User:Muffinwrites/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article Arctic ecology.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I felt that based on my areas of interest and experience, I would be able to evaluate this article accurately. Arctic ecology, both past and present, is an important and current topic; understanding the many factors that make up arctic ecosystems is increasingly necessary as climate change threatens the stability of this vulnerable region. My preliminary impression of the article is that it was expansive in terms of the subjects it covered, as one might expect from a topic that includes so many different components, but limited in terms of grammar, logic flow, and citations. Several citations were missing or in incorrect formats, which would make it more difficult for a Wikipedia reader to find and examine the source material.

Lead section
The first sentence of the article's lead section is easy to understand and summarizes what Arctic ecology is with clarity. However, the lead contains information that can't be found elsewhere in the article, and the grammar and sentence structure both limit the academic tone. For example, a somewhat misleading sentence in the second paragraph claims that ecological research in the Arctic began after "the first major Canadian Arctic Expedition" which is not mentioned elsewhere in the text and seems to go against mentions of earlier Arctic research by other scientists and nations. In terms of copy editing level changes, in the sentence, "Since then, many indigenous populations have inhabited the region, which continues to this day," the subject of "which" is unclear, and a discussion of The Arctic Research Laboratory contains a sentence that either incorrectly uses the word "launched" or aims to say that the research station was launched for a specific purpose without accurately conveying such. Additionally, some aspects of the lead that could include Wikilinks do not, such as the mention of the Canadian Arctic Expedition, indicating that there is room for better organization of this article with regards to the structure of Wikipedia as a whole. The organization of the lead could also be improved to provide broader descriptions of the proceeding sections instead of including individual, specific facts from them.

Content
The content of the article fluctuates between relevant and irrelevant, structured and unstructured, and cited and not cited with a frequency that suggests that a number of different editors with different backgrounds, interests, and plans worked on the content; this seems to have resulted in an article where relevant content is interspersed with content that has only the barest relation to the topic. For example, the section titled "Human ecology in the Arctic" contains opinionated and non-notable/irrelevant statements on game hunting and the history of indigenous peoples in the Arctic.

On that note, the article does address a historically underrepresented population: the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. The sections addressing their history and current interactions with scientific researchers contain several areas of concern. In addition not addressing the indigenous peoples of different areas of the Arctic as separate groups and instead focusing primarily on those of North America, suggesting a gap in information, the article presents views on the interactions between indigenous communities and scientific researchers from only one source and without the proper neutrality. Furthermore, segments about indigenous history in the Arctic often contain significant portions of information extraneous to the intended topic of the article. I would recommend either revision of these sections to encompass either more neutral sources or more viewpoints, or possibly the removal and migration of these sections to a more appropriate topic area. My searches have not yielded a Wikipedia article on Arctic history or Arctic indigenous groups, but aside from a brief overview of the historical study of ecology in the Arctic, much of the tangential information in this article would be better suited to those areas.

Discussions of conservation and climate change, while technically relevant to the topic of Arctic ecology, vary between being overly specific such that important content is missed and non-notable content is given increased weight, and so broad as to discuss general climate change without discussing its impact on Arctic ecology. I would suggest condensing the information of the two sections "Conservation and environmental issues" and "Arctic Biodiversity and Climate Change" into one section, correcting the citation mistakes made by their editors, and examining tangential or non-notable information as to its purpose or use in the article.

Tone and Balance
As mentioned in the previous section, the tone of the article does not meet Wikipedia's goal of balance and objectivity when discussing the indigenous peoples of the Arctic. Additionally, tangential statements occur occasionally which convey some form of opinion: for instance, the statement "one of the most serious problems that plants face..." has a non-neutral tone, as does the comment, "amazingly, most people living in the Arctic region live a lifestyle very connected to the environment", and statements such as "it is extremely important for a hunter to be smart and really take in their surroundings" solely confer opinion.

With the exception of discussions of indigenous peoples, the general tone of the article does manage appropriate neutrality with occasional tangential statements of opinion that are not characteristic of the whole.

Sources and References
The article either lacks appropriate citations or has improperly formatted citations in all sections. The section on "Biomes", for instance, has one portion with only Wikilinks and no citations of sources outside of Wikipedia, and the one on "Arctic Biodiversity and Climate Change" has parenthetical citations without footnotes. The lack of or improper use of citations is a problem which occurs throughout the article; adding proper citations for key information would increase the reliability of the article and repair one of the primary formatting inconsistencies in the text.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is composed of seven primary sections: "Arctic environment", "Biomes", "Adaptations to conditions", "History of Arctic ecology", "Human ecology in the Arctic", "Conservation and environmental issues", "Arctic biodiversity and climate change", and "Further exploration". The structure and order of these sections primarily distracts from the article by disrupting a logical flow of information. One editor on the talk page suggested moving the History of Arctic ecology section to be immediately following the lead. I agree with this suggestion as it would give the reader the necessary background information first, instead of presenting it in the middle of the article.

The section on Biomes has structural inconsistencies within its subtopics, but is a relevant section to the topic and does not contain information already discussed in other sections. The sections on "Adaptations to conditions", "History of Arctic ecology", and "Human ecology in the Arctic" all contain references to indigenous peoples and practices that belong under the same subtopic. I would suggest compiling this information under the heading of "Human ecology in the Arctic". "History of Arctic ecology" could then be primarily the history of the practice of ecological sciences in the Arctic, while "Adaptations to conditions" could feature discussions of non-human animal and plant adaptations without stating the incorrect and extraneous information that humans have no known adaptations to cold environments.

The sections "Conservation and environmental issues" and "Arctic biodiversity and climate change" deal with the same topics. I would reiterate my suggestion from above that these two sections be condensed into one.

The overall writing quality of the article suggests the work of multiple editors, as it fluctuates between proper grammar and a formal tone and improper grammar coupled with an informal tone. Several copy-editing level changes require revision, while additional sentences containing structures, words, or phrases not in accordance with an academic or professional tone may also need to be examined. Overall, I think that the article requires editing that will condense it into one encyclopedia entry that is interconnected and completed.

Images and Media
The article includes two images: one of a sunset, and one of an Inuit family. I would suggest the addition of several images to this article, including but not limited to: a map denoting what region the Arctic occupies, a photograph of one of the Arctic research stations, and images of the Arctic landscapes, plants, and animals discussed. These would improve the quality of the article by providing a visual component to the information presented; they would also ensure that the current two images no longer are extraneous or non-notable when compared with the complete lack of images in other areas.

Talk Page Discussion
The Talk page contains suggestions by several editors on how to improve the article, a list of citations compiled by one editor for the sake of researching and citing information presented in the article, and at least one comment from 2014 suggesting an outline for the article, which seems to have been partially implemented. I would suggest visiting this particular message on the talk page when considering performing information revisions, for it contains factual, objective, and academically presented information that might have potential for several sections. It additionally demonstrates the original structure that existed beneath the current one, which could provide increased understanding of the logic-flow therein.

Overall Impressions
Overall, I feel that this article could benefit from significant revision. On the most general levels, it does not present information in an appropriately academic or focused tone, the lack of citations is not in accordance with Wikipedia's goal of providing reliable, verifiable information, and it deals with subjects such as the relationship between indigenous peoples and the scientific community non-objectively and without describing multiple viewpoints. The article has a strong potential in that it contains much of the appropriate information for the topic, but structuring and presenting this information is an area of weakness that I would suggest addressing. Arctic ecology has been rated as C-class (see Wikipedia's content assessment categories); this is a rating I concur with based on my reading and reviewing of the article.