User:Enatti0108/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Footprint

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The reason I have selected this article is because it discusses a topic that falls into my field of interest. It also has the possibility of being a good article to edit for my forensic science course.

Evaluate the article
In the lead section the first sentence does clearly and consisely describe the topic in a short manner that is straight forward and easy to understand. The lead section also includes a brief description of what will be in the major sections of the article without stating in this article you will find..., rather than subtly including what will be discussed in a compact paragraph. All information within the lead was included in the major sections of the article. Overall, this lead section is concise and gives a nice short overview of the topic and what will be in the rest of the article.

In this article I feel there was a wide range in content however, it was all relevant to the topic. I also believe all content was up to date given they discussed historical footprints as well as footprints in pop culture. they also discussed a scenario when that from 2023 giving proof that it was fairly up to date. I feel there could have been slightly more information in the footprints in detective work including the different types of footprints (latent, plastic and visible) and more. I also feel it could have gone further into depth in the footprints in myths and legends section than simply stating the myths and legends as just by reading this section with out clicking on the links I an ensure what exactly that entails. I do not believe this article deals with one fo wikipedias equity gaps.

I feel the tone and balance in this article was great as it simply described the topic and subtopics without trying to persuade the reader of anything. I feel it meets all requirements for the section of evaluation.

In this article I did find that some facts were not backed by a source for example Footprints have been shown to have determine the height and the sex of the individual. There is a reference for the height however, I did not see a reference for the sex of the individual and it is unclear if that information came from the same resource as the height. The resources used are thorough and I feel they do reflect the available literature on the topic. This article had a mixture of both recent and pat resources however, I feel this was necessary as it talked both about historical and recent information. I feel some of the resources used could have been better as there are some that do not follow the guidelines given by wikipedia for example an article written by the New York Times. All links in this article seem to be working.

In this article I found some of the sentences difficult to read and could be rephrased to be easier to understand. There are also a few grammatical errors that could be fixed by rephrasing some of the sentences. However, the article is well-organized and laid out in a good manner.

This article includes great images that enhance the readers understanding of the topic. Each image is well captioned and adheres to wikipedias copyright regulations. Each of the images is also laid out in a visually appealing way.

On the talk page for this article there are a few different things that are discussed. The first being a few changes made to the external links of the article, and the second being some improvements that could be made to the footprints as evidence section of the article. this is a C rated article and it is included in a talk page for forensic science and footprint analysis. this article is different from what we discussed in class due to the fact that the article is not forensic science based. It is simply an article about footprints that also discusses its use as evidence however, it is not specifically about forensic footprint analysis.

I feel the C rating for this article is accurate as there are many places for improvements. I feel the images provided in this article are definitely a strength as they do a great job of giving a deeper understanding of the topic as it is a visual based topic. Another strength is all the in text links that can be used to understand something that may be unclear to the reader. However I feel this article can be improved by cleaning up some of the sentence structures and making them easier to read, as well as including some more in-depth information on the subtopics of the article. I would consider this article to be underdeveloped as I feel there could be more added to it to take it to the next level.