User:PresleyThor/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biodiversity Monitoring Switzerland.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in biodiversity, it is necessary for the survival of our planet, and it relates to this class. I also chose this because Switzerland is a beautiful place that I have always wanted to visit. It matters because biodiversity is crucial in order to have healthy balanced ecosystems. My impression is that I was wondering whether Switzerland is the only place (country) that does biodiversity monitoring.

Evaluate the article
The article includes a lead and introductory sentence that clearly and succinctly describes the topic of this article and is not overly detailed. However it does no include a short description of the topics or sections that will be covered in the article. It also includes some information such as different organism groups that are not present or further explained in the article

The article’s content is relevant to the topic of biodiversity monitoring in Switzerland. It is also up to date and was last edited on July 24th, 2023. I believe there is content missing, I think they should go more in depth on the different organism groups such as FOEN, NFI, NAWA, NABO, and WBS in terms of maybe how and what they do. I am not sure if the article deals with a wikipedia equity gap, and I’m not sure if it addresses any topics that are related to historically underrepresented populations/topics unless you count underrepresented species. It does briefly mention the European Grassland Butterfly index.

The tone and balance of this article is definitely neutral. I did not notice any claims that appeared biased. I did not really notice a viewpoint, but it doesn’t seem to be overrepresented or underrepresented. I did not notice minority/fringe viewpoints, and the article didn’t try to persuade the reader in any way.

All of the facts in the article are certainly supported. Most of the sources are from 2019 or retrieved during 2019. The most recent retrieval was December 2022, so I would say it’s pretty current. Most of the sources seemed to be credible, with websites ending in .gov, .ch, .net., .uk, .int, as well as many papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals. There were only two links (the 9th and 28th references) that didn’t work when I clicked on them. I believe the sources were definitely written by a diverse spectrum of authors, there were sources that weren’t in English, they were in Swiss. I am not certain if they included historically marginalized individuals. I don’t think there were ‘better’ sources, but there were certainly similar or the same ones when looking online. When I checked JSTOR, there were a lot of sources regarding biodiversity, but not in Switzerland specifically. However I also just noticed that the wiki author who wrote the article appears to be blocked, which could possibly affect the credibility of this article.

I believe the article is well written, it is very concise, clear, and easy to read. The organization of the sections is great, but I think they could have gone a little more into depth or provided more information. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors.

The article includes 5 images that help enhance understanding of the topic and they are well captioned along with being laid out in a visually appealing way. I think that the images adhere to the wiki’s copyright regulations but I am not certain. My only critique is that the pictures should be bigger so it’s easier to see.

Article is written in British English, so the spelling is different and should not be changed without broad consensus. There are conversations regarding most relevant  and reliable references. They included papers that were published in peer-reviewed journals. The article is rated C-class on Wikipedia’s content assessment scale and it is of interest to the Articles for Creation Wiki projects. It is of low importance for ecology and for Switzerland wikiprojects.

Overall the article is pretty basic, the information that is there seems to be good, but I think it could delve further into it. I feel like I was still left with questions or wondering more after reading the article. I would say the article is more than halfway complete, so well developed, it just needs a bit more depth.