User:Schacher iastate/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Environmental Science)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is my area of study. I think environmental science is an important discipline to understand because it helps build an understanding of the world around us and how to preserve those systems. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was a gives a general umbrella description field, sufficient information needs to be added.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * Yes
 * Somewhat, it seems to have just listed the the terms with their respective Wiki-links in the intro.
 * No
 * Yes

Content


 * Yes
 * Yes
 * There isn't any information that doesn't belong. The information in the article is sufficient for the definition of 'environmental science', you would need to look elsewhere for information beyond that. Each section would greatly benefit from global case studies as references.
 * It says that environmental science emerged from the Enlightenment Era and became an active field of scientific investigation in 1960-70s. I feel that this is a Eurocentric view on the history of the article subject. There is no mention to the traditional ecological knowledge that Indigenous Peoples around the world have and still cultivate through ecological experimentation and observation that has contributed to the field of environmental science.

Tone and Balance


 * The article used a nurtural tone throughout, as a reader, I didn't feel as though I was being pulled in a certain direction by the author.

Sources and References


 * There are only nine sources cited for the article, as a reader, I view this as a majority of this information isn't backed. The sources are current within the past 20 years accompanied with working links. I believe that the resources for this article could be stronger and from more diverse authors. One of the sources was another Wikipedia page, which the Wiki-training said not to do.

Organization and writing quality


 * The article was easy to read and well organized.

Images and Media


 * There were few images but they were well placed with informative captions including appropriate citations.

Talk Page Discussions


 * There was a lot of criticism on the Talk page, a majority saying the article lacked information.
 * The article is rated a C and is apart of the 'Wiki Project Environment'.

Overall Impressions


 * My overall impression is that this article is poorly developed. It can be improved by including diverse studies done within the field and to elaborate on each individual subsection.