User:AnNguyen1018/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Brain size

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to the course's topic of human evolution and I noticed that it could benefit from different improvements. I think it matters because this is a topic that many people who may be curious about even if they don't study evolution or anthropology. My initial impression of the article was that it lacked some citations among several claims and that while the information seemed factual and relevant, it could use more organization so that the information can make more sense.

Evaluate the article

 * Overall, the article is relevant and written in a neutral tone and point of view. The article discusses brain size, which is a topic that is widely studied within various scientific fields. This topic is not one that tackles one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Many claims in the article do not contain citations, which could make them appear unreliable. In the "Humans" section of the article, there is the claim "It is also important to note that variation between individuals is not as important as variation within species, as overall the differences are much smaller," which seems like an opinion more than a factually supported claim.
 * Some parts of the article appears out of place or lacking information. For example, the article contains 4 subsections under the topic "Variation and evolution," all of which only have 1-3 sentences of information. This gives the impression that there was not enough information on the topic for it to stand alone as a subtopic. As a reader, I felt abit confused about the way the author organized the sources and information that they were presenting. Brain size is a topic that encompasses a large amount of details and various sub-topics, so it is understandable that there would be an overload of information when it is being laid out in an article. The sources were mainly primary sources and included alot of numbers and statistics, all of which can be quite helpful. However, for a first-time viewer or someone who is not studying the subject as a professional, the information can be quite distracting and overwhelming.
 * In addition, while most of the citations are reliable, a significant portion of them come from primary sources. In terms of organization, the information and numbers included could be cut down and edited to only include the most relevant and helpful information. Overall, the article is neutral and informative, but slightly underdeveloped and unorganized. It could benefit from a better organization of information, more citations where necessary, and more varied sources.
 * In addition, while most of the citations are reliable, a significant portion of them come from primary sources. In terms of organization, the information and numbers included could be cut down and edited to only include the most relevant and helpful information. Overall, the article is neutral and informative, but slightly underdeveloped and unorganized. It could benefit from a better organization of information, more citations where necessary, and more varied sources.
 * In addition, while most of the citations are reliable, a significant portion of them come from primary sources. In terms of organization, the information and numbers included could be cut down and edited to only include the most relevant and helpful information. Overall, the article is neutral and informative, but slightly underdeveloped and unorganized. It could benefit from a better organization of information, more citations where necessary, and more varied sources.