User:Nbrint/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Natural resource management

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it is relevant to our class, and I have a lot of back ground knowledge on the subject due to classes and training. I believe natural resource management is an important subject that concerns water resource consumption and mitigation.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The article meets most of the requirenments for good content. I like the opening statment that describes the topic right away. One part of the content that I didn't really agree with is the concept of stakeholders in natural resource management. I felt it was out of place for the page and not very relevant. There were links for under historically represented groups on the article. I noticed the EPA formation was not in there. There were a lot of references from australia in the article. The overall tone of the article was farely neutral. I think the view on stake holders having some sort of right to natural resource management was a little over bearing and out of touch. I think if there were more countries contributing to the article, it would be beneficial to environmental conservationists. There were a few fringe view points in the article and I felt they were accurate. Some could of been mentioned but were not like ecofeminisim and ecocentrisim. The sources in the article all worked. I clicked on a few I wanted to learn more about like share holder analysis. Following the links helped me understand the content better. I felt the litterature was current but not complete and there are a bunch of different sources. The dates in the article range from 1995-2019. I thought this was a healthy range of dates in the particular field. I liked how the article was organized into clear sections that were easy to understand. The only part I didn't like was the organization, adding steak holders in the first few sections of the article. I didn't find any grammatical errors in the article. There are two images on the article. I would add more images to it. They are both copy righted properly. I would add pictures of butterflys or salmon. I think the article could be longer, I feel it was not creative enough, looked scattered and boring. There was one short video on the site from the wales, which was interesting. Again, I think the article would be better for natural resources management if more countries were represented. On the talk page, there were no real conversations except editors who were making comments on what they edited, along with links. Over all I feel the article was under developed, I feel there could be a bunch of room for emprovement especially where the content is concerned. I would rewrite the stake holders section and move it, since it is not really a broad description and more of a narrow side of natural resource management. There was no section on environmental conservation or methods. I thought the article was well written however.