User:Cocoa2021/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pliocene

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 as we are learning about this subject in my class, and as well because I saw there were many additional details that needed to be added to this page. This article matters as not a lot of people know about this specific aspect and has the wrong thoughts/ideas about human evolution. So, I want to help show the truth about human evolution, as I have learned a lot about it, this year.My preliminary impression is that it did contain a lot of details about the subject, yet it does not reference or cite where they got this 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.)

The introductory sentence does not clearly state what it is, and to to specifically address what this page will talk about. It does not give a brief description of the sections. I think the lead is very concise, it does not go into major details. The article is relevant today, as it has been updated recently.The tone of this article is neutral and informative of the period. However, it lacks citation and reference throughout the article. As well, it does not define different key terms nor aspects in the page. It briefly goes over different aspects in this period, but in a broad sense. I do believe everything is needed for this page, but there should contain more research papers and articles that detail this period. As well, the sources they cited, are well-informed for this page. It is easy to read and didn't have much spelling errors. There are images that showcased the page, and they all seemed to be cited correctly. The article can be improved by citations, and going into depth about this topic. The article was rated very low, as it lacked references.