User:Chrishansen4/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

Polar ecology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I evaluated this article (Polar ecology) because my graduate thesis explores the consequences of seasonal, microbe-centric interactions on local biogeochemistry beneath the southwestern Greenland Ice Sheet. Therefore, I've spent ample time consuming relevant literature, and am always excited to learn more about this fascinating/extreme biome. Critically, Arctic and Antarctic organisms—uniquely adapted to the cryosphere (e.g., desiccation, frigid, and oligotrophic stressors)—influence nutrient cycling on a global-scale and often depend on opportunistic resource availability. However, anthropogenic activities accelerating glacier shrinkage (e.g., via global warming), influencing atmospheric deposition (e.g., introduce contaminants such as black carbon and N-containing compounds), and depopulating wildlife (e.g., whaling) threaten these habitats and vital ecosystem processes. Thus, grasping the relationships between polar a-/biotic forces helps us predict the consequences of looming deglaciation. Preliminary impression: This Wikipedia page may be in early/moderate development, lacks a focus on ecological subject-matter, and can benefit from content restructuring.

Evaluate the article

Below is my detailed evaluation

• The leading section concisely describes the topic, mentions major sections (Climate, Water, Land, Animals, Vegetation, Threats, and Conservation efforts), and defines polar zones. I recommend removing some excess descriptive elements (e.g., light availability at either pole) due to redundancy. In addition, the importance of polar ecology (e.g., impact on oceanic ecosystems worldwide) can be explicitly stated.
• Content
  • The article's content is moderately relevant to the topic (i.e., Polar ecology = interactions between/within communities of organisms and responses to environmental inputs), though it strays from ecology by describing non-biological events climate trends, water storage/release, conservation approaches, etc. A possible improvement would be to bring Vegetation and Animal sections to the forefront—providing explicit (+ backed) examples of ecological relationships in the context of environmental extremes in 1) oceanic and 2) terrestrial zones. Including a section titled Importance (e.g., what is the importance of understanding interactions within polar ecosystems?)
  • New sources (w/in the last 3 years) are needed to ensure content is up-to-date. Has aquatic/Pacific biodiversity been constrained? Has the ramifications of climate change accelerated? How do ecological processes impact global biogeochemistry (e.g., C cycle)?
  • As noted previously, I don't believe Climate, Water, and Conservation efforts should be prominent and may not belong. Instead ecological relationships should be highlighted
  • Lastly, regarding equity gaps, information about indigenous Arctic and Antarctic(?) populations can be included, if applicable. For example, were any ecological phenomena (e.g., seasonal succession and mutualism within plant communities) vital to/leveraged by indigenous life?
• Tone and Balance
  • The article is neutral without apparent biases (i.e., no attempt to persuade the reader). Though possibly omitting an ecological focus, no viewpoints are overemphasized/underrepresented.
• Sources and References
  • Some facts lack backing from a secondary source (e.g., "In the Antarctic, there are fewer temperature variations. Temperatures only range by around 30 °C (54 °F)", "Some of these adaptations may be to be big and insulated, have a lot of fur, and to be darker", "The Antarctic vegetation consists of algae or lichens, and some bacteria and fungi, although mosses and lichens dominate").
  • Sources can better represent available literature if encompassing recent scientific publications/news letters. Currently, there is a reliance on other Wikipedia articles and 3 textbooks (i.e., those published by Fog, Brown, and Stonehouse). In addition, these sources (11 in total) can be more relevant (e.g., within the last 3 years), given the dynamic, constantly evolving field of polar research/climate-related investigations. For example, attached is a better, peer-reviewed article describing microbial diversity in polar ecosystems
  • Links are functional, though a more diverse array of authors can be incorporated.
• Organization and writing quality:
  • The article sometimes contains redundant information and its brief, staccato sentence structure can make the narrative difficult to follow. In addition, jargon is often introduced without context/explanation (e.g., "And because Antarctica is closer to the sun at perihelion, it receives 7% more radiation than the Arctic"). Lastly, grammatical errors (e.g., switching between plural and singular and incomplete sentences) can be resolved to improve conciseness and clarity.
  • Regarding organization, as stated above, environment-only categories can be downplayed since polar ecology should focus on the organisms (i.e., how they interact with each other and the environment). An alternative structure may be: Importance -> Terrestrial -> Aquatic -> Ramifications of Climate Change
• Images and Media: This page lacked images. Pictures may help visualize organisms or interest that participate in globally-impactful ecology (e.g., flora, fauna, and microorganisms). In addition, figures (e.g., describing the advance of glacier retreat, impact of polar respiration on GHG emissions, etc.) may emphasize the importance/evolution of applicable subject matter.
• Talk page discussion: The talk page includes 4 statements requesting clarity (e.g., on temperature metrics, environmental descriptions, and resource sequestering) or noting grammar correction needed. The article is rated C-class and a member of Arctic, Antarctic, and Ecology (High Importance) WikiProjects. In comparison to class, this Wikipedia page does not mention the biogeochemical ramifications of polar ecology (e.g., impact of organisms on C/N/S cycles and vulnerability of these transformations to global warming).
• Overal impressions:
  • Status/Summary: This article is informative, and provided a foundational overview of polar environments. However, material covered extended beyond the scope of ecology (i.e., lacked a subject-matter focus), was backed by few sources (i.e., relied on 3 textbooks), may be missing citations, reads as a brief statement of facts—difficult to read per clarity/grammar areas of improvement—vs. concise narrative, and omits microbial contributions—though I am slightly biased.
  • Strengths: Provides an accessible introduction to polar environments (i.e., spans a-/biotic forces present)
  • Improvements: Improve clarity/conciseness via narrative/grammar corrections, limit out-of-scope exposition and focus on ecological processes (+ examples), restructure sections as previously noted, add images, expand the amount/quality of sources
  • Completeness: Underdeveloped