User:Dexvn/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of artificial life

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Artificial life has always intrigued me seeing as life is integral to what I study. Studies of life found in all forms of research are all interesting. The article doesn't start off strong. The leading statement is fairly weak leaving me with no new information.

Evaluate the article
Firstly the lead section of the article is weak at best. It has a nice introduction sentence that informs you about artificial life with some dates on when humans began fist thinking about it. However, that it. There is nothing more to the lead section, and I think the article could do with more information to be present in this area. Information in the lead section can be found in the article. The lead section here is concise, but I feel its just too concise and lacks in simple depth.

The content of the article on the other hand is well done. It is ordered chronologically, and states exactly what you'd expect. The details in the content are well researched and not overly detailed. Along with that the whole article is written in a neutral factual way. Multiple sides of the history are all presented no matter the origin. It also shows great representation by including people from all over the world and from all types of culture who participated in the development of artificial life. This article does well with the equity gap by providing many sources and links to a plethora of websites. The sources for this article are all reputable from the books to the websites. All of the links in this article work. There are no visual elements present in the article, but the information given is more than enough to start you off on where to find a place to research. There are few statement in the talk page, but all present are constructive and aid in the articles creation.

This article for the most part is well written. With a strong emphasis on the content and neutrality. The leading section was its weakest point. If the leading section was made more detailed then the article would appear more interesting to new viewers.