User:Optimisticecologist/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Biodiversity loss

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because biodiversity loss and biodiversity in general is an issue I am both deeply interested in and am concerned about. Biodiversity loss is a major issue in the Anthropocene. In increasingly human dominated scapes, populations and entire species often face stiff odds for survival. Understanding this issue in the broadest sense can help human communities make informed decisions about their development in light of the consequences to biodiversity. My preliminary impression of this article is that it is aflush with quality citations and information. I do however notice that the article provides uneven coverage of affected species.

Evaluate the article
The lead is excellent and features a concise and detailed overview of what is to follow. Overall, the content of this article is strong. The sources used have merit, are functional, and are numerous. I feel like the material is organized well, with the exception of some notably content thin sections, namely: "Earthworm Loss" and "Native Species Richness Loss." The content within these sections is solid, however, there is very little material within them and they err on the side of incomplete. There are a few grammatical and typographical errors of note. The phrase "These rapidly rising extinction trends impacting numerous animal groups including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and ray-finned fishes have prompted scientists to declare a contemporary biodiversity crisis.[7]" is incomplete and should contain the word "are" in between "trends" and "impacting." Additionally, the last paragraph of the "Loss Rate" content section is challenging to read. The examples given to better illustrate the concept is muddled by the exceptionally long parentheses included within one sentence. It's a bit cluttered and could benefit from dividing the sentence. There is a typo near the end of the "Change in Land Use" section that refers to " planet-based diets" instead of "plant" based diets. Stylistically, I think the article does a good job of avoiding value based language while communicating the gravity of the topic. I would suggest reducing the amount of times "also" is used within the article. It is often unnecessary and reduces the impact of the statements is precedes. The last sentence of the "Pollution" section contains a tense disagreement, the verb "depended" should be replaced by "depend." My overall impression of the article is that it is well-researched and informative. With a little bit of work, the overall quality could be fortified by the addition of more robust sections and some light editing for grammar.