User:Wubbles0423/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Sustainability Studies
 * I am very interested in sustainability efforts across disciplines and encouraging further research, study, and emphasis on sustainability throughout all aspects of modern life in order to prepare for a healthier and more environmentally conscious future.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead appears to be concise and mostly introduces the two main concepts to be discussed in the article. The sentence arrangement is somewhat fragmented and could be rearranged for better "flow," and the idea of a "shift towards sustainability" (the first section title in the article) could be better introduced in the lead. Most of the claims in the lead are cited, but not all. The lead is not too long or too confusing. I think it has a good foundation at the moment but could be cleaned up a little.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the subject of sustainability and appears to be up to date. The article currently focuses primarily on why sustainability studies are important and how they came to be a focus in academia. The article does not appear to have a thorough, in-depth description of what sustainability studies actually are (typical courses in a program, central ideas taught through these courses, etc...). The article does not necessarily deal with an equity gap, but it could do a better job of explaining the impacts of sustainability (or lack there-of) on poorer nations and impoverished communities, since these are typically the ones hit first and hardest by environmental issues.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article does appear to have a heavy bias towards the relevance and importance of sustainability studies. I agree, of course, that they are necessary for the world's survival, but the article does not mention the fringe opinion some maintain that scientists exaggerate global warming data. I can understand the impulse to attempt to persuade readers the utter necessity of sustainability measures for the sake of the planet, but I'm not sure whether that technically breaks Wikipedia's neutrality policy or not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article cites a combination of scholarly articles, (potentially biased and argumentative) international newspaper sources, and websites with focuses on different types of sustainability majors and educational programs. These sources appear to be reliable and current, and the links work. All statistical claims in the article are backed with a citation, but not all seemingly-factual claims are cited (another reason why the article comes off as biased). There is a very broad and rapidly growing availability of articles, journals, and websites on sustainability, but perhaps not as much on sustainability studies, so the current sources could very well reflect the amount of reliable information currently available.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Save for a few minor grammatical errors and slightly awkward sentence phrasing, the article is easy to read and clear. There are only two topics discussed in the article, and they are both different from each other. They don't adequately reflect the major points of the topic since the section on the history of sustainability and sustainability studies is much larger than the section about possible career fields for those interested in sustainability, and there is no section discussing actual sustainability studies and what a program might entail.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are only two images. One is an image of the earth from space. It is placed at the top of the article page, next to the lead and does not have a caption. It does have a link that enlarges the image and includes a caption explaining the name of the photograph, when it was taken and by whom, and the links that I assume lead to the source of the photograph and its permission to be re-posted. Since the earth is a well-recognized image and is a well-associated image with environmental and sustainability discussions, I think it is fine to leave it without caption in the main article. The other image is a graph depicting the amount of fuel consumed globally from 1990-present with a prediction for how much will be consumed through 2035. The graph's caption adequately explains what the graph depicts and is cited as existing in the public domain. While fuel consumption is relevant to the topic of sustainability, this article does not explain how it is relevant or why the information being predicted by the graph is so alarming.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There are no discussions occurring on the talk page. The page is rated as stub-class, and it is a member of the WikiProject environment.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article certainly has a foundation, but is very far from being complete. The language in it is biased, the information discussed is not holistic, and the actual topic of the article isn't well explained. The article does do a good job of introducing the topic in the lead and explaining the history of the emergence of sustainability studies. To improve the article, I would start by adding another section to the article that describes what sustainability studies coursework generally looks like, I would remove the non-cited and biased language, and maybe add another, smaller section explaining the opinion of climate change doubters. I would say the article is underdeveloped in its current state.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: