User:CorwinBM/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)DNA phenotyping

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 am interested in genetics. This article matters because DNA phenotyping can be used to determine the physical attributes of a person. My preliminary impression of this article was that while the information on the page seemed good, the article was a little short, and more information could be added.

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 lead was concise, and the starting sentence was good, but it didn't really cover what the article's major sections were about. The content seems up to date, and from what I could tell, the information seemed relevant. However, I feel like more information could have been added in certain sections. One section is only one sentence long. The tone appears to be neutral. I didn't notice any claims that were biased or trying to persuade me in favor of one position. For the most part, all facts are backed up with sources, except for one brief section that had no sources listed. The sources that were listed in the article were mostly from the past 10 years, with a few being older than that. The sources are from many different authors. The few source links that I checked all worked. The layout and organization of the article seemed good to me, and the writing was concise and easy to read. There were no images in this article. This is a start-class rated article with no rating on the importance scale. There was no discussion taking place on the talk page. While like article currently is concise and gives you a brief overview of what DNA phenotype is, how it works, and some examples of it being used, I feel like more in=depth information could be added to the article. I think one reason for this is that this practice is not a common occurrence, and a lot of the science behind it could be too confusing for people to understand. I think the information that is currently in the article is good, but more information should be added.