Talk:The Human Life Review

Article Evaluation
The lead is concise and introduces the article topic. It is a short article so there are no other major sections, so it covers all of the information that is written in the one section. The article content is related to the topic. It is up to date and there is nothing that does not belong. All of the facts of the article are backed up by the reliable sources provided. They are relatively current, compared to the content of the article. There is not a diverse spectrum of authors because there are only three sources listed. The article is well organized, concise, and clear. It is a relatively short piece, and it is straight and to the point. There is an image of the cover of the journal. This is enough because the article is about a specific journal so images are not very necessary. It is in three WikiProjects, however two of the projects rate it of low importance. Other than that there is no conversation on the talk page about the article. Overall, the article is concise and clearly describes the content and context of the topic. However it can be improved by diving deeper into the journal, further explaining the content of the journal, maybe give examples. The article could be a little longer. I would say it is underdeveloped. ~ BlondePink(talk) 13:20 5 October 2023 BlondePink (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)