User:ColorOfSound92/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Genotyping

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was a stub, meaning it needed a lot of work. I found it on the genetics stub page, and I am very interested in genetics so I wanted to pick something from that stub page.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead section is a bit disorganized and may not be written in form that everyone could understand. It does have an introductory sentence that states the article's topic. However, it is a bit of a run on sentence and is not very concise. There are no sections written yet, so the lead does not contain descriptions of each section. Since the lead is the only portion so far, it does contain information that is not present in the article.

Content:

Since this article does not contain any sections yet, I can't say anything about the quality or content of the sections. This means there is content missing. Some sections could include: the history and development of genotyping techniques; the uses of genotyping (such as medicinal, agriculture and phylogenetics); and explanations of the processes in genotyping.

Tone and Balance:

What the article does have, so far, is written from a neutral perspective.

Sources and References:

The article has two references so far, for the lead section. They are each referenced only once. For the rest of the sections, more references will be needed. Even for the lead section, there are a lot of claims about genotyping methods that don't appear to have a source and statements about the uses of genotyping that don't appear to have a source (or at least do not have the reference linked to the paragraph).

Organization and Writing Quality:

Currently, the lead section seems to be a bit disorganized and isn't very concise. It could use some cleaning up. I am hoping the other person working on this page responds to my message so that we can split the sections. I think this will help the other sections seem more organized and flow better.

Images and Media:

The article has no images currently, so it could definitely use some. With the broadness of this topic, I think there are many sections that there will be images for.

Talk:

I don't believe there is a Talk page discussion for this page right now.

Overall:

The article is a stub and needs a lot of work. Not just with the addition of more sections, but with addition of references, images and the organization of the page.