User:Siperez/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ecosystem management

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is included in the Environment WikiProject and it is Rated C and Mid-Importance. I think the topic is interesting because it is relevant to both my research in ecology, but also to HDGEC, as effective ecosystem management practices must consider social priorities and constraints, in addition to ecosystem factors. Given the rating of the article and its brief lead, my initial impression was that there were areas that could use improvement.

Evaluate the article
Lead: While the introductory sentence provides a concise, clear definition of the top, the lead as a whole is quite brief (only 4 sentences) and provides limited or no context for what is covered in the rest of the article. Additionally, some information in the lead seems to not be discussed elsewhere in the article (“It is a multifaceted and holistic approach which requires a significant change in how the natural and human environments are identified.”).

Content: Overall, the content is relevant to the topic and seems to be up-to-date, including a couple sources from 2020. There is a notable imbalance in the degree of coverage between some sections in the article (e.g., strategic management is discussed briefly, while other management practices are notably more in-depth) and some statements are vague (e.g., “Adaptive management has had mixed success”, but no examples provided). Although not a primary focus of the article, it does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations, specifically in the “History” section in which Traditional Ecological Knowledge is discussed. However, it should be noted that this section is brief and North American-centric, not mentioning ecological management practices employed by indigenous communities in other regions.

Tone & balance: The article is written in a mostly neutral tone and generally, there is no clear bias to a particular stance or viewpoint. However, there are a few occasions where the article adopts a more persuasive tone, suggesting the author favors a certain perspective (“Attempts at command and control management often backfire (a literal problem in forests that have been ‘protected’ from fire by humans…”).

Sources & references: Facts presented in the text are supported by reliable sources, primarily sources from peer-reviewed scientific journals. However, throughout the references, several sources are duplicated, giving the appearance of more cited sources than there are in reality. Additionally, some sources are incomplete, only providing the first author’s name and publication year. The links for correctly cited articles do work. Cited sources come from a range of disciplinary journals, including journals related to conservation biology, forestry, water resources, and urban planning.

Organization & writing quality: The article is generally well-written, although there are some instances where it could be edited for brevity and grammatical errors. The order of sections feels disjointed and would benefit from the “History” section being presented first, followed by “Formulations”. Finally, for improving clarity, it would be helpful if the different approaches to ecosystem management (Adaptive, natural resource, strategic, and command/control management) were presented in one section under several subsections.

Images & media: Only one image is provided, and although it is captioned, its connection to the article is unclear as mangroves are not mentioned elsewhere in the article. The article would benefit from more images that are pertinent to the text. The image meets Wikipedia’s copyright requirements.

Talk page discussion: On the Talk page, there is only one conversation, which discusses the removal of a citation by a reputable source. The article is part of the Ecology, Law, and Environment WikiProjects Environment, and Rated C and Mid-Importance by all three WikiProjects. Despite some references to the role of stakeholder engagement, the article does little to consider the human dimensions of ecosystem management,, including constraints potential social and political constraints, and human implications.

Overall impression: As a whole, the article provides a clear overview of some aspects of ecosystem management. However, the level of completeness throughout the article is noticeably unbalanced, and several sections would benefit from more thorough explanations and examples.