User:Clockwisecrocodile/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Talk:Adam's apple - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I randomly chose human anatomy, and since I have a prominent Adam's apple, I chose to read through an article relating to it.

Evaluate the article
One thing I noticed from a quick look through the article is that the majority of it was taken up by chatting and comments from other editors (the original creator maybe had 20% of the dialogue that was in the article). While some of it was relevant information (actual medical terms and descriptions for development of Adam's Apple sin men and women) there was also quite a lot of inter-talking that go off topic, and got very distracting (such as a "right-wing" conspiracy theory about Ann Coulter's Adam's Apple). The actual article did not contain very much relevant information to the topic, the creator used very informal language when engaging with the topic and used individual sentences such as "I have been familiar...", and "I thought these questions might be worth covering...". The creator did post some interesting information regarding the basis for the name "Adam's Apple", the information is linked to another Wikipedia article. I have three pieces of advice for this article: the first is formally without personal statements, like "I have known.." or "I think/thought". These take away from the research-based perspective that makes for an unbiased article. Second, I would advise to write a lot more. the creator put very little information in the article, and the page is mainly dominated with discussion posts and chats. The creator should re-examine their article based on the advice given by other editors. Additionally, writing more will allow room for greater discussion taking place on the page, which will allow for continued growth and editing in the article. Third, I would advise the creator to source their articles away from Wikipedia; their information should be coming from reliable outside sources and shouldn't directly take off of previously written articles.