User:Pejames21/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ecological succession

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a topic I am somewhat familiar with and it was listed as needing more sources added. The concept of succession is very important to understand as different areas are allowed to return from a managed to natural state. Understanding succession means understanding what stages an area will go through as it becomes natural once more. It is also important to understand how an area will recover from a natural disaster, like a wildfire. The article seems well written and like it contains a fair amount of information. It does seem to be lacking sources and definitely could use some more.

Evaluate the article
The lead is well written. It includes a great first sentence that properly introduces the topic at hand. It mentions the general ideas that are to follow without adding any extra information that is not needed. I do believe it could be better and maybe include more information about the major topics mention later in the article. I feel as though some information is missing there that could be beneficial. Overall, the lead is well written and concise.

Most of the information is appropriate and well written. Though a few areas seem neglected, such as the section on primary succession and seasonal and cyclic dynamics. It appears to be up to date with no out of place information. I do wonder if more history could be included to show indigenous roles in succession, as I am sure there is important information surrounding that topic. The article is written from a neutral point of view and doe not attempt to persuade a reader in any way. There does not appear to be any explicit bias, but a few point seem a bit underrepresented, as stated before. There are no minority points, but I think there should be.

The sources included are current ad up to date. The links work. The sources are appropriate. However, the sources are lacking in size. More sources should be included to back the information contained in the article and even to provide more information where the article is currently lacking. This area, I believe, has the most room for improvement. There could be more diversity and inclusion as well as more topics.

The article, as stated, is well written and concise. I did not find any grammar or spelling errors. It was mostly easy to read, though there seemed to be a few areas that could be simplified to make it easier for the general reader to comprehend. The images included are okay. They relate to the topic at hand and provide useful information. There could be better and more appealing images included as well.

The talk page did not seem to have any discussions; it seemed to have posts that informed others about updated or changed information. There were statements made, not discussions had. I also did not see the point in some of the things included in the talk page as in why were certain items necessary to include? The topic has no ongoing discussion, but it is apart of a WikiProject (Ecology).

Overall, I think the article is in good standing. It is very well written and informational. The average reader could definitely gain the necessary knowledge needed to understand ecological succession in a general manner. It is well-developed, but it lacks extensive sources. The only true weak point I could see was the sources and maybe lack of inclusion of lesser heard voices I think could pertain to this topic.