User:AM UP Editor/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
For my article I have chosen Natural science

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article was selected after a brief period of browsing when I noticed that several of its sections lacked any quotations. Considering the importance of this article on such a foundational topic as natural science, which is the basis for much of our understanding of the world, I felt that further analysis was required. Despite, this issue overall the article was well written and included a cavalcade of useful information regarding its topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead of this article manages to introduce the topic in a concise fashion that still includes all the necessary details to ensure the reader fully understands what this article is focused upon in addition to its major sections.

Content: Though there are debates on what is considered natural science none of the featured sections appear out of place performing an admirable job at presenting up-to-date information regarding its different subcategories and history though content on recent history is somewhat lacking. While it does not deal with an equity gap considering the range of the what the article covers addressing traditionally marginalized groups should probably be reserved for more specific articles such as ones on the contributions of scientists of color.

Tone and Balance: Overall the article is neutral without any apparent bias or attempts at persuasion. However, I am not familiar enough with the viewpoints held regarding natural science to determine if any of them are over or underrepresented.

Sources and References: Several of the sections of this article lack any secondary sources at all which is rather problematic. Furthermore, one particular source from 2007 gets referenced significantly more often than all the rest though considering it is in regard to the history of natural science it is unlikely that it is out of date though relying on it exclusively could introduce bias. Notwithstanding these problems the sources that were used appear reliable and relatively current.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is easy to read and to my knowledge avoids any egregious grammatical or spelling mistakes. Additionally, it is broken down into numerous sections that all make sense and improve readability.

Images and Media: All the images used were appropriate to the articles topic, were well captioned, and are laid out in a fashion that certainly not unappealing. Whether or not any copyright regulations were violated is difficult to say though there is no indication that these images were not free for reuse.

Talk Page Discussion: The article has been rated as B-class with little discussion in regard to how this can be improved as recent discourse surrounding this page appears non-existent.

Overall Impressions: The article features a plethora of well written neutral content presented in a easy to follow fashion and as such I would consider it to be a well-developed article. However, the lack of citations for certain sections remains potentially problematic with the addition of these citations alongside collecting new information from newer sources being the only changes I would make.