User:ANTH151EC/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Forensic facial reconstruction - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As a student, I am attempting my first evaluation on this article because it interests me as a former Forensics major and because it is affiliated with the subject of our course. My preliminary impression of the article, however, is that it is lacking in clear structure and could use more balanced content.

Evaluate the article
 Lead section


 * “Despite this controversy, facial reconstruction has proved successful frequently enough that research and methodological developments continue to be advanced.” The word “be” should be removed from this sentence for more concise language.

Content


 * The “Neolithic dog's head forensic reconstruction” section seems irrelevant to the article despite discussing the topic and could be removed with little negative consequence to the overall quality of the article.

Tone and Balance


 * · Overall, the tone of the article is appropriately neutral, however there is a lack of balance in terms of quantity of content rather than subject matter or persuasion.

Sources and references


 * An abundance of sources and references allowed me to examine several which appeared to be factual and accurate.

Organization and writing quality


 * The organization of the table of contents seems disheveled. As a reader we’re introduced to types of identification immediately followed by legal admissibility. The sections about technique and reconstruction would flow better chronologically following types of identification. Every other section branches off in completely different aspects. The sections concerning legal admissibility and history contribute to the article, but they would be organized better following technical sections.

Images and media


 * The initial image representing the article, two skulls, is a bit vague. It’s difficult to determine what the article is about from the image alone. Perhaps a reconstruction in progress could illustrate

Talk page discussion


 * Surprisingly, talk page submissions consistently rated the article quality as a “B”. Though I’m not familiar with the rating system at this time, my prediction would have been a lower rating due to lack of content. Regardless, it’s clear the article has room for improvement.

 Overall impression 

With a little reorganization, cleaning up, and additional quality content, my impression is this article has potential to be efficiently informative.