User:Sparamin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eco-terrorism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Eco-terrorism is a concept that I was fascinated with prior to enrolling in ERS 222. Radical environmentalism has always interested me because of the irony evoked in it. Environmentalism at its core is aiming to preserve our natural resources and establish a relationship with them that allows for truly sustainable use. This is usually to ensure the human existence remains in harmony for future generations, and acts of violence or terror against those who degrade the natural environment seems counter-intuitive. It is possible that these acts of eco-terrorism themselves are in fact detrimental to the environment, and undermine the entire purpose of eco-terrorism itself.

Evaluate the article
LEAD SECTION:

I find the initial sentence to be slightly vague. It allows you to understand at a surface level what eco-terrorism is, but I believe it needs to hold more detail regarding history or examples of it to properly engage the reader before the body of the article. The lead section is almost too concise, and I believe it should include more cursory information found in later sections of the article in order to be a more effective introduction to the topic. Almost the entire opening section is devoted to a definition and figures from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and there is little consideration for any of the further sections included in the article.

CONTENT

The article on Eco-terrorism has relevant content, but I believe it to be limited. The sections on history and philosophy seem rather short and there is not sufficient detail in these subjects for it to be an all encompassing article. I believe the article requires a wider scope, as it seems lackluster in content. I also find the headings to be an odd choice for the topic. The history, philosophy, and examples sections make sense. However, the section immediately following history is "Eco-terrorism, civil disobedience, and sabotage", which feels like an odd inclusion. The history section is not supplemented by distinct eras and has a narrow scope timeline wise.

TONE

The article presents a neutral tone and does not appear biased in any way. It does not argue for or against eco-terrorism, merely presenting information regarding history.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

The links used in the References section appear to be working. These sources used to supplement the article appear to be from responsible sources including government websites, books, and neutral journals. There are adequate uses of embedded links throughout the body, and there do not seem to be any statements made without referencing. My main problem with the referencing is that a large majority of sources are from the FBI, which contributes to a rather small portion of the article. This seems to have a potential regional bias in the sourcing, and does not seem the most relevant in the grand scheme of eco-terrorism.

ORGANIZATION

The article appears to be well written with no grammatical mistakes. The only issue organizationally come from the previously mentioned headings. The sections to not seem to adequately represent the concept of eco-terrorism, and are sequenced poorly.

MEDIA

There is no visual aids or photos used in the article at all.

TALK PAGE

There is limited interaction or discussion being performed, with the majority of the talk page pertaining to individual adjustments made over the course of 5 years. It is rated C-class and belongs to WikiProject groupings for animal rights, crime, environment, politics, and terrorism.

OVERALL

I believe that the largest issue with this article is its scope. Everything included in the article is of passing quality, but it seems to be missing important provisions including pop culture references, expanded details on tactics, history outside of the United States, and notable eco-terrorists. It is well-developed so far, but requires more work as it is underdeveloped.