User:Vmcostan/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Human ecology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I discovered the article through Category:Academic disciplines and the topic looked interesting. The article on human ecology matters because it is a field of study that is notable and there are many accurate and reliable sources to support it. My first impression about the article's topic was one of curiosity. I have a personal interest in sociology, psychology, and history, so I liked that the topic involved learning about humans.

Evaluate the article
The introductory sentence is concise identifies what human ecology is. The lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections, including the fields of study related to human ecology. After reading the article, I didn't see anything in the lead that wasn't addressed in the article, although I think the article could have went into greater detail addressing some of the topics in the major sections of the article. The lead is concise and direct. It gives a clear overview of the topic and the rest of the article.

The content included in the article is relevant to the topic. Content that is relevant to contemporary times uses sources that are relatively up-to-date. I couldn't find any information that was missing, although some topics could be expanded on. The article's subject is an academic discipline, but I don't think the article would be considered an equity gap. As far as I can tell, the article didn't address any historically underrepresented populations or topics.

The article is told from a neutral point of view and gives a balanced view of human ecology. No, I didn't notice any claims that were biased towards one side. I think the article could go into more detail on how human ecology intersects with art and education. The article is written in a fair and as unbiased a way as possible. I don't think the article attempts to persuade the reader to believe one opinion over another.

Yes, the sources are reliable. The sources cited come from journal articles and books. Some of the sources are more current (from the 2000s and 2010s), but other sources are much older. The sources come from a range of authors, including women. While they are some newer sources from journal articles, many of the sources come from older journal articles. Many of the links work, but a few do not work.

The article is well-written, direct, organized, and easy to follow. The language is professional, but not convoluted. I didn't find any spelling or grammatical errors. The article is organized into clear sections and the major points are covered.

There are a couple of relevant images used. The captions explain what is happening in the image and why it is relevant to the article. Both images are licensed through creative commons. The images are placed in an appealing way, on the side of the text.

The article is well-written and provides a decent overview of the topic, but there are areas of improvement. Firstly, the lead section could be expanded on. A few other sections, such as the interdisciplinary approaches to art and education could also be expanded on. Secondly, the article could use more up-to-date sources. Thirdly, the article could use a couple more images. My overall impression of the article is positive. It is well-written, concise, fair, balanced, and well-organized. I think the article is a little underdeveloped, but I think it's a good start.