User:Sltannaeemi/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Marine Pollution

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen marine pollution as this particular topic interests me. In addition, I would also like to contribute and determine a method in which to improve our impact to the marine environments and further attempt to solve a lot of the issues surrounding it in the near future. The reason why this topic matters, is that it will further cause extinction to species around in that environment and later have a chain of reaction to the rest of the food chain and other ecosystems if we do not make a change in our habits fast. Furthermore, it will also cause ocean acidification and further destroy supplies of water that could be turned to of good use. My impression of this article at first was that it was a valid and a detailed article about the issues and impacts of marine pollution. Since, this topic is not a fairly new one, I assumed that this article would look like an article with reliable sources, and one with information that is not biased. Moreover, I also assumed that it would be more of an accurate and informative article, one that would explore the many different ways the marine environments are being polluted. For example, the many chemical spillages, species population declines, and etc.

Evaluate the article
For the lead section of the article, I think it does properly convey the articles topic in an efficient and concise manner. This is because it states all of the various ways one can cause pollution to marine environments and at the same time, also provides a short opening to the definition of the term as well. It gives access through links to the many ways one could cause or label it as marine pollution. The lead section provides a brief description of the articles major sections. In the lead, it mentions briefly about types of pollution and the harm it can cause. In addition to this, it also includes the history of marine pollution and the laws to protect such marine environments to prevent the further pollution of that. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. It states all the topics briefly. I observed that the lead is generally concise. It does not seem to be over a page, and goes through general but important information to give the reader an idea of what the article is talking about.

For the Content section, the articles content is relevant to the topic. As it includes specific subtopics of pollutions in the marine environment's. Such as, Acidifications and Toxins. Furthermore, it also includes the methods into which the pollution enters the environments and the laws of enforcing such restrictions to sustaining a marine environment. Such as, pollution by way of land and pollution by way of water in transportation. Moreover, I observed that all the specific sections in the content, are indeed up to date and are sorted and organized as how they look. With according information that seems to fit well with the topics covered. I believe that all the information in the article is valid and no sources of information are required to be taken away or should be added. Subsequently, I think it does address all the remaining underrepresented cases/events that have occurred, as there is a list of specific examples of areas that in which this occurred and incorporates examples with respect to the topic it is talking about.

For the Tone and Balance, I believe that the article does come from a neutral kind of perspective. As it does just list information and does not convey to sway the reader to a specific side or not. There are no evident claims to a specific side, however does mention a lot of the negative connotations alongside with marine pollution. The article does not persuade the reader to a specific side and the viewpoints are deemed underrepresented. As it did mention a lot of information and gave examples, however felt like there could be more examples and some more minor viewpoints added.

For the sources and references section, I checked the references section in the bottom of the page and looked through the secondary source that also provided a reliable source like a journal article that was peer reviewed. Furthermore, a lot of the sources were observed to be books that fact checked as well. The sources are thorough and are believed to be not as current. As, I saw a lot of the sources to be from 2005 and 2009. So not as current.