User:PoriferaAsteroidea/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Ecology of Florida

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 choose this article since it is a part of the C-class Ecology articles and also because I did a May master in Key Largo, Florida in which we learned about the ecology of Florida. This article matters in educating readers about Florida's unique fauna along with the biotic and abiotic components along with human impact on Florida's ecology. My initial impression of the article was that it appeared to be structured well and flowed in a concise and easily understood manner.

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 Lead section is concise and the first two sentences are well written; however, the rest of the lead section appears to go off on a tangent that is confusing to understand and not representative of the whole article. All of the content sections are relevant to the topic and cover a wide range of characteristics and factors of Florida's ecology. Some content sections appear to be more lengthy than others. Specifically, the abiotic and biotic sections could use more information. The article has an overall educational tone. There are a few areas were "citation needed" has been noted, so a few paragraphs lack citations, but overall there are about 24 citations already. Organization and flow of the article was well thought out and easy to follow. Images are relevant to the topics discussed, but I personally would like to see more pictures since I am a visual learner. I liked how the author attached links to other wikipedia pages that discussed topics in further detail and depth. Overall, the article is headed in the right direction, but could use some more work on thickening up the sections "abiotic" and "biotic" while also incorporating more peer reviewed research articles.