User:Archaeologyslay/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Taung Child)

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 I have always been interested in Bioarchaeology and Bioanthropology. My favorite genus is also Australopithecus because some of the species have very protruding zygomatic arches, which contributes to a very unique face shape for the species; this drew my attention initially. The Taung Child article matters because it is one example of early evidence that we as humans do not have the same bone or bodily structure as we do today, in other words it is proof of evolution and biological diversity. It is also important because it is regarded as the missing link between primates and humans in terms of ancestry. In terms of my preliminary impressions, I think it was more than sufficient in describing the physical characteristics with images and the story of its classification and why it was classified as it is. Having taken an anthropology class last year that focused mainly on the evolution of the human species, I was thoroughly impressed. I expected the article to cover mostly just where it was found and how it was named- just very basic information.

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.)

I think that overall, the article is very informative. Upon looking at the talk page, it seems as though many view the source as more of a creationist article rather than an article focusing on the Darwinistic aspects of the information. There are some erroneous links attached to names of the people associated with Taung Child, which would negatively affect the articles evaluation and perhaps even accuracy. The article is very well organized. It is mostly easy to read, but some sentences are difficult to understand- meaning that either they are very wordy or there are grammatical errors that cause confusion. There are also wikilinks to terms that a general audience may not know for clarification and easier reading, like the term "deciduous teeth", which is a scientific term for baby teeth, has a link to another article. There are many other examples like this. However, not every piece of information in the article has a citation, which generates some skepticism for me. Still, most of the sources cited are fairly recent, the earliest being from around 1970. In terms of improvements, I think there could have been more pictures of Australopithecus specifically.

~ Archaeologyslay, 2:05 PM