User:Sataylor19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Agroforestry) Agroforestry

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 chose this article because it was already mentioned on the wikipedia article I selected and I didn't know what it was. It matters because my article is based off of this larger concept. My preliminary impression is that the article looks well organized and succinct with a lot of citations at the bottom.

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.)

Lead Section

The introductory sentence of the lead section is concise and clear. It makes it easy to understand what the main definition is. Everything that is mentioned in this section, is detailed later in the article to varying degrees. This section does mention the topics of the main sections but I think it is too detailed at times and doesn't conclude nicely.

Content

The content is all relevant to the article's topic and nothing is notably missing. The content seems up-to-date as well with many of the citations within the last 5-10 years. There seems to be a lot of focus on the benefits but not much detail about the challenges. The content on applications is very thorough with detailed examples that cover multiple locations with different climates.

Tone and Balance

The article does seem to have a neutral point of view. As addressed in the content section, there is much detail on the benefits of this practice while there is little detail about the challenges/sacrifices this may indicate a slight bias. Additionally, all the challenges listed are in reference to obstacles in the United States specifically. It presents many applications from around the world which is nice but the historical uses by Native Americans is summed up in only two sentences and could be more detailed.

Sources and References

Most of the facts seemed to be backed by reliable secondary resources with only a few citations missing. These resources are on topic and up-to-date as well. The authors seem like a very diverse group and the sources all seem academic and peer-reviewed.

Organization and Writing Quality

No noticeable problems with grammar or spelling. It is nicely organized in sections with bolded subsections. There is also a nice use of bulleted/numbered lists throughout the sections when needed.

Images and Media

There are multiple images in the lead section and one of the subsections. All of the captions aid in the understanding of the corresponding images. It would be better if they were more evenly spaced throughout the article and some of the images in the lead section moved to later sections and more images used overall. All of the images adhere to the copyright policy and are properly credited.

Talk Page Discussion

After looking at the talk page for this article, many of the issues I already raised in the previous sections have already been discussed. I think that attempts have been made to reduce bias (elaborate on challenges) and there is still work that can be done. I also see that many people collaborated to produce the thoroughly diverse applications section that I mentioned before. The article is rated as C-Class and is part of 3 different WikiProjects with mid-low importance (Agriculture, Forestry and Climate Change).

Overall Impression

My overall impression was that it provides a good summary of the concept, reasoning behind the implementation as well as multiple applications. The strengths of this article are the detailed benefits and applications sections. They both have well-supported subsections and are easy to read. The weaknesses lie in the challenges and historical application sections as well as a better conclusion to the lead section. It could be improved by explaining in detail the barriers to the implementation of agroforestry around the world and the possible negative effects/shortcomings. More images in the benefits section explaining some of the more complex scientific processes would also aid in understanding. I would rate the article's completeness as underdeveloped because although it was well organized and worded well, content-wise, there still seems like a lot of room for improvement.