User:CameronEGraham015/Evaluate an Article

hello

Which article are you evaluating?
Mimicry - Wikipedia

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 decided to use this article for two reasons; one I wanted to use a bio article and two I thought of it randomly. my belief on why it matters if it applies to my field of science and how life is protected through mimicry.

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.)

The article Mimicry has a well-written lead section in which the reader is given a direct definition of the topic and then it is expanded upon in the rest of the lead paragraphs. The lead sections do seem to be very detailed. The third paragraph gives a lot of information that could go into the evolution section; with it being replaced with something that introduces the idea of evolutionary ties in mimicry instead of explicitly informing about it.

the article overall has good organization and is easy to understand and read. The article also has no errors which I have noticed though my grammar isn't perfect. The article also has plenty of sections that break down the topic into understandable pieces. "Mimicry" puts the information harder and factual stance than you would find in the classroom.

The article has good content and is very well-kept in information that is relevant and with no content that seems to be missing. The article also shows a fair number of viewpoints that are not normally considered. The article will now be addressed as "Mimicry". "Mimicry" is very neutral and factual showing no bias between viewpoints and providing fair information on each appropriately to avoid giving incorrect information. "Mimicry" also does not persuade but informs them.

the sources "Mimicry" uses are appropriate, but some may be a little outdated with one of them being from 1940 besides that they seem to be current. "Mimicry" uses its sources to back up what it is saying and indicates where the information comes from. The article also mentions information from historical figures in their appropriate fields and viewpoints on the subject. Above all else, the links they seem to use lead to where they are supposed to go and can be used to fact-check. The images are also appropriate and used spectacularly, while also seeming to follow copyright policies.

The talk section of "Mimicry" seems to have problems with some images and meaning in mimicry vs predator also mimicry vs. masquerade and others. The talk page rates it somewhat well.

Overall, "Mimicry" takes the information into an understandable format while also being clear on the truly factual and the perceived facts taking a true neutral route. like I mentioned before maybe put more info into the actual sections instead of giving too much detail in the introductory lead section which kind of makes it seem very complex to simple readers besides that I perceive no problems with its completeness and everything else.