User:AlysEder/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Biomimetics)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose this article because of my interest in biomimetics. The topic matters in terms of creating based on the laws of nature- creating from nature. My preliminary impression is that the article could benefit from organization. In addition I did see some places that needed citations.)

Evaluate the article
(Article is rated a C and also high on the importance scale. The article is within in the scope of engineering and biology. Which I think can also be added to the a large portion of design. It seems like biomimicry is also a paradigm of thought. That being said, I do think it would be wise to explain what exactly biomimicry is,.. is it a thought process, a heuristic tool, a paradigm, all of the above, etc. How is it being operationally defined and then make sure that the article encompasses that.

At least in the break down of the article I believe it's organization can greatly improve, in the case that additional information is added. For instance any insitutions that are a result of Biomimicry should be added, in addition to the college's that hold disciplines. As well as, who exactly is researching this currently and how has in past, and possibly where the discipline is going in the future.

With the degree of future changes, the lead will need to change as new information is added.

It seems like a lot of the references currently are specific articles from designs from engineers and biologists, which is a good indicator of where to find information. I do believe there to be information gaps in the sense that the list of examples of biomimicry is not exhaustive. One problem I do foresee is that many examples of biomimicry were created not in the precognition that it was in fact mimicking nature. In addition, a classification of something that in itself is not nature is indicative of our own current relation to nature, epistemologically.

Lead: looks good. The second paragraph might need some more work.

Content: Could be updated.

Tone and balance: neutral. No bias detected.

Sources: good.

Organization and Writing: Could be improved upon.

Images: Yes. One picture could be more detailed.

Talk:

Overall Impression: the article is a good overview. I think it could be more detailed and does have content gaps. )