User:Fannav99/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eyewitness testimony

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to be evaluated because it is a class C article with High importance. Also, on the talk page it is mentioned that this article did not meet good article criteria, and offers suggestions for improvement of the article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise and gives the reader a good idea about the topic discussed in this article. The lead does mention the article's major sections; however it does not provide a description of them. The lead does introduce and define eyewitness testimony; however, there is no section in the article about what eyewitness testimony is, and how it is being used in courts. The article jumps right into research, and psychologists' view on the topic.

The content of the article is relevant, and it seems to be up to date, as there have been edits made as recently as 2022.

The article could be better organized in my opinion. Breaking the topic of reliability down for example instead of just jumping into a historical timeline. The section could first address "why" eyewitness testimonies are considered to be unreliable (which is addressed later in the section), and then explain "how" psychologists came to this conclusion (aka history timeline). For this reason, the article loses my interest in the very beginning.

The article does not provide images of to help the reader better understand.

On the talk page there is discussion about including a section about what would constitute an eye witness, e.g., can cameras be considered to be an eye witness? Are there any laws/regulations that specify what is considered an eye witness? There is also discussion about the lead section missing some information, and suggestion to include Elizabeth Loftus in the lead. Moreover there are peer reviews about the positives about the article such as the unbiased tone, but there is also a call for including sources and viewpoints that support the use of eyewitness testimony - if there is such a thing.

My overall impression is that there is a solid foundation, and some very good details laid out in this article, but there may be room for improvement as far as organization, and the lead section.