User:TumbleweedThoughts/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Abiotic component - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose "Abiotic component" as my article of choice because it is a topic we are currently exploring in my Environmental Ethics class. I previously knew very little about the subject matter. I was curious to know what Wikipedia had to say about this topic and was surprised to find that the page was rather sparse. The subject matter is important because abiotic components, abiotic factors and nature are still fairly new topics to us. That is to say, we, as a society, are still learning how to properly understand abiotic factors or how to protect abiotic nature, and better explain why abiotic nature is worth protecting. At this point, I would like to emphasize that I realize that abiotic nature and abiotic factors are different things. Abiotic nature is simply what first captured my interest in all things "Abiotic". My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very concise, but it seems to lack depth and detail. Wording choices seem to be overly complex. More examples that help the reader understand the "Abiotic component" would be helpful. More images and links to abiotic issues we are currently challenged with would be beneficial and might enrich the article as a whole.

Lead section
The Lead section of this article is short and concise. It briefly explains, to the reader, what the "Abiotic component" is, although it lacks depth and is not written in an "easy to understand" way. As a layperson, I would not be able to explain to someone else what the abiotic component is after reading this introduction. What further stood out to me, when doing more research, is that the sentence structure and word choice are almost verbatim, as seen on Abiotic Components - Types, Examples, and FAQ (vedantu.com). What could enhance the lead section is giving better examples of what the top "Abiotic components," otherwise also known as "Abiotic factors," are, i.e., wind, climate, humidity, etc. While one wouldn't have to detail all of this in the lead section, giving a brief example could prove helpful.

Content
In my opinion, the content section of the "Abiotic component" misses its mark. While many big words are used to give a reader the impression that it is scientifically written, the actual content is largely lacking. In reality, the Abiotic component/Abiotic factors are a straight-forward topic that can be broken down in an easy to explain way. More importantly, this paper's main section should cover the most prevalent examples of abiotic components, and it lacks to do this.

What stood out to me most is that the main portion jumps right into "examples" rather than further defining what abiotic components are and what role they carry in our ecosystem. Spending some more time explaining what "abiotic" means at its core, what "abiotic components" are, and why they matter in nature would be relevant before delving into the scientific examples shared that were hard to understand and lacked context.

Tone and Balance
The author did a good job at keeping the tone and balance "neutral." The article reads like a scientific manuscript, which is good. However, as previously mentioned, to sound "scientific in nature," the article misses its mark, overcomplicating a topic that is, in fact, fairly simple, leaving out relevant examples and putting more effort into the tone than the actual content. That being said, the paper would, in my opinion, get full marks on "tone and balance." There is no bias or attempt to "persuade the reader." The author did a good job!

Sources and References
The author included many sources and references, with most of them being recent and relevant. As previously mentioned, some of the page's content is overly scientific, and the examples seem to miss the mark. That is to say, they are a bit too complicated and don't give the reader a good idea of what the "abiotic component" really is. The links to the different references (when provided) work and are from reputable sources. I would have liked to see a bit more content honing in on "abiotic component/factor" as there seems to be an abundance of information on this topic. Overall though, the author included good sources, ensured they were relevant, and included working links.

Organization and writing quality
I was not impressed with the organization or writing quality of this article. The page feels "boxy." This is to say, it lacks paragraph separation, better headers, etc. What stood out to me specifically is that the different examples the writer lists all flow together, despite not being related. It would have been helpful to break the examples into topics. Including better images could have made it easier for the reader to understand the topic at a glance (there seem to be many helpful charts and images that could be referenced). As previously mentioned, the article is written in an overly complicated matter. I don't think a layperson would know what "abiotic components/factors" are after reading this article. I, myself, had to spend time doing additional research to fully grasp a topic that is, in fact, quite simple. Focusing on simplicity, better structure, better headings, and more relevant content would significantly enhance this article's quality.

Images and Media
The author did an excellent job at adding descriptions to his images; however, the image choices in and of themselves are fairly poor. None of them help the reader gain a solid understanding of what abiotic factors/components are. The images are low in quality. After researching myself, I learned that many other images could have been used instead. Many video links could have been added as examples. Overall, I did not feel like the image choice enhanced the quality of the article.

Talk page discussion
This article is part of a larger WikiProject, namely "Biology." There does not seem to be much activity on the talk page, other than some mention of references that could be improved or exchanged. There does not appear to be talk about the content. This is not surprising, as abiotic components aren't a "hot topic" as, say, climate change, although it doesn't make it any less relevant. Overall, the Wikipedia page's input did not seem to be very helpful or constructive and oftentimes included grammatical errors. I think this further underlines the lack of interest in the topic. This topic is rated as "low importance" on the talk page, although I don't fully agree with that assessment.

Overall impressions
By simplifying the language, adding more relevant written examples, and incorporating better images, headers, and text spacing, this article could become more visually appealing and easier to understand. The article's strength is that it is not persuasive in nature and reads very much like a scientific paper. However, the article is lacking detail, and I would not assess it as being complete or well-developed. At this stage in its "growth period," much work remains to be done to make it easier to read, visually appealing, and relevant to the actual subject matter. Overall the article is supposed to be informative. Its lack of structure and overuse of irrelevant topics, and complicated language make it confusing and detract from the educational nature it is supposed to have.