User:AB1967/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Forensic science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because it relates to my future career goals. This article is important because this article represents the field to people who would not normally have much information on the topic. My preliminary impression is that the article needs some work done to it, as many citations are missing, with some sections lacking in information. It also

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead of this article feels overly detailed, and does not contain any form of descriptors for the major sections of the article. While the content is relevant to the subject of the article, I feel that too much focus was placed on the history sections when placed in comparison with the methods section. It has been recently updated, so I would consider the information up to date. I do not think the article maintains a neutral tone throughout, in certain areas the author has a more persuasive tone rather than focusing on presenting information neutrally. A lot of the information does not come from confirmed neutral sources, with questionable reliability. Sources definitely need to be worked on by some amount. There seems to be no communication on the talk page, and has a C rating. This article is part of many other wiki projects. The article is not formatted well, seemingly jumping between subjects at will. All of the images help support the topic, and are well captioned. I think this article does alright as an informational piece, but requires much more information and a revision of it tone in order to seem more neutral before it can be considered a good article.