User:FeyUnlocked/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of evolutionary thought

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have taken a course in evolution and have spent many hours delving into research about evolution and the mechanisms by which populations of organisms change overtime. This article should have an outstanding amount of information to pull from, so it seems like a good starting point.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: This article does a stellar job discussing a summarized history of Evolutionary Thought. It mentions names, ideas, and some literature without swamping the reader with too much information. It does have information about non-evolution based ideas for change - Neo-Lamarckism - however, it doesn't linger for long and isn't terribly out of place.

Content: This section is extremely dense. It contains a substantial information about the past of evolutionary thought, however it does not have many articles about changes in this thought process in the modern era, as most works cited are from much earlier in the past. There isn't much information about equity gaps due to the nature of the information being discussed, though it could talk about marginalized individuals that aren't as often accredited with development. It also seems to be missing some information that some would deem critical towards developing the understanding behind modern evolution, such as Darwin's Finches. Tone and Balance: This article is about a scientific thought process, and as such it is a very neutral article. It looks through the documented history and changes within the field and describes them with accuracy. It also discusses previous views and why they have been disposed of over the current understanding of evolution.

Sources and References: This section is amazing. Not much to say when they have over 170 sources to discuss the history of a topic. The sources could be slightly more current by adding in new information behind Evolutionary Thought, as the article seems to have stagnated slightly (Though that isn't necessarily the editor's faults, the article is already extremely detailed and has a lot of information up to the current era). I would add recent information into the article to allow readers to understand the recent history in this topic.

Organization and Writing: Once again, the article is extremely well polished. It has no grammar or spelling errors that I could find with a quick read through. Each section is independent and hosts the relevant information with plenty of links to other articles on Wikipedia.

Images and Media: This is an area I believe the article could improve. Some of the images used seem to be of a lower quality, and they lack some images that seem crucial towards understanding what brought about the changes in thought during respective time periods. It has some images of people and some ideas/concepts, but it lacks visual aid near the end of the article.

Talks page: The active talks page is currently very sparse because most of the work on this article was done between 2005 and 2010. The previous Talks page logs are impressive. There are multiple sections with lots of information and ideas on how to better improve the article and how to get it to FA status. It differs slightly from how we discussed in class due to the staggering amount of information given by all the individuals participating.

Overall Impressions: This article definitely deserves its FA status. It is extremely dense with relevant information that have incredible sources. It is concise when needed, and has links in almost every sentence to allow readers to gain a better understanding of the information presented. The article is extremely well developed. It is almost fully complete - the only changes I would consider making would be recent changes in thought due to discoveries.