User:RamboHambo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nature conservation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I care deeply about nature for my personal philosophy is heavily inspired by nature itself, how everything we know comes from nature. I see nature as something we need to protect, but I see our history as the ignorance of our progress has caused so much damage already that now we have to fight amongst ourselves just to protect nature in a battle for conservation. This article in particular interests me because it seems to define what nature conservation really is, and I'm a firm believer that it is good to know the basics of something before getting fully involved. Nowadays, one field is actually comprised of many subfields to go into, or categories, meaning that there is just so many ways to do things. Humans being humans, we have to identify and categorize these ideas and that can just get confusing. With this in mind, it seemed only logical to learn the various conservation methods people primarily fall into to develop at least a base knowledge of this subject, but once knowing that, I'd need to look into the current state of nature to then formulate my own idea of what I think we should do when it comes to nature conservation.

Evaluate the article
First off, this article has a flag for needing more citations and fact check verifications on those citations, which seems like an immediate sign this article isn't perfect. However, the lead section does a well job of explaining nature conservation and giving a brief enough overview of the whole idea. The sources themselves seem just recent enough, at least within the past couple years, but there are some sources that are from the early 2000's or mid 1900's. The overall content of the article though does seem to stay on track with nature conversation without deviating much, staying in the themes of defining, contextualizing, and presenting examples. There are only some moments where they stray on some other minorly relevant facts, but they aren't too distracting. The tones and language remained unbiased throughout the article, just presenting facts as is without much, if any, embellishment. From observing the talk pages, it seems the most recent discussion, taking place in July of 2020, just recently had this article confirmed to be called "Nature conservation," but other discussions go far back as 2003, and they range from things to add in to discussions about edits that should be made or why they were made. Overall, this article feels decent and good enough to trust. There are some sentences that could use rewording or clarifications, but the content seems consistent with the topic and enough to explain it.