User:Selaneme/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
en.wikipedia.orga/wiki/Queer_ecology

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.)

This article holds close relevance with my major and personal interests, and the topic was entirely new to me. I had not encountered it before looking at the Wikipedia Environmental Studies category. I think the concept also deserves attention since it provides a unique perspective on ecology. My initial impression consisted of intrigue and curiosity.

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.)

Leading into the article, this very first section provides a quick synopsis of the subject. The introductory sentence appears clear and concise, giving a broad overview of queer ecology. This section is only a few sentences long, and it does not appear to highlight all the article's major sections. However, the information presented is completely relevant to the article. The following outlined sections all pertain to the main topic, and a solid amount of the references are from the recent decade. The article most definitely covers historically underrepresented populations as this article recognizes marginalized communities. This article highlights the pursuit of disrupting and reimagining the heteronormative (dualism) perspective in science, which becomes a prevalent theme throughout the article. In terms of equal weight among the sub-sections, it appears to be of equal length and scope. Although, each section seems to lack a robust description. In other words, more content will be needed in order to elaborate and explain their points. For instance, the history section discusses the origins, but does not contain many current references from the past 5-10 years. I think it may be a random, unreviewed addition, but a reference to the 2009 movie Avatar was made with no further explanation. Other sections also make reference to past literature and generate a clear statement that will need more examples to support their respective section. For overall tone and balance, the article as a whole is neutral. It doesn't seem to push for a particular agenda. I think that the section titles could be organized in a different fashion to allow for better flow within the article. The current set-up and abrupt final section makes the article feel incomplete. There were no images or media present on the page within the subsections, except for the flower icon for Green Politics. Also, the sources/references need another review to ensure they are peer reviewed and current. This change would enhance reliability as well as create more substantial, explanatory sub-sections. Since this article is a part of series under "Green Politics," it may not contain all aspects of an FA graded page on Wikipedia. It is under C-class, and it will need more development to properly achieve a strong, well articulated piece. To me, this article is currently underdeveloped and requires more content in order to fully address their purpose and contribution to ecology and historically marginalized groups.