User:FatimahB/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Evolution of sexual reproduction

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 it is related to the class topics we just went over last week. The evolution of sex is the foundation for much of the discussion on "diversity of sex." My preliminary impression was that this article is very confusing and a lot of preliminary information is not provided at the beginning of the article.

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.)

Lead section: I do not think this section provides the necessary background information on the topic that gives an efficient or effective introduction to the topic. The lead section does not provide a brief introduction to all the main subsections of the article, many of the subsections are completely ignored such as the historical perspective and the mechanistic origin of sexual reproduction. This lead section does not provide definitions to the basic words associated with the article, which makes the article extremely convoluted and confusing.

Content: This article provides a lot of content that may contribute to the confusion. Much of the content presented tangentially relates to the topic of the article, however many of the subsections could be more useful in other articles. For example, the origin of sexual reproduction may be better suited to its own separate article.

Tone and Balance: The tone is primarily neutral. However, many of the subsections of this article heavily rely on one citation.

Sources and References: This article provides many sources and references but each one seems to introduce a new topic/thought. This article is in need of sources used to support the same topic.

Organization and Writing Quality: This article has some organizational continuity, however many of the later subsections seem out of place and disrupt the flow.

Images and Media: The images used are very good and aid in the explanation. More images are needed, especially in the denser topics.

Talk Discussion: This article's talk board brings up many important issues with the page, but it also mirrors the convolution of the article. Many people were asking clarifying questions regarding the scope of this article.

Overall impressions: This article has a lot of issues but also provides an immense amount of content and information related to the article topic. Some edits to the article that prioritize clarifying the scope of the article and more defined terms would make this article a better read.