User:Fgc401/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
New Biological Nomenclature

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this is a Zoology course (animals), and I am also taking a biology course where there was an overview of nomenclature for organisms. So, it was helpful for me to read over the article. This article matters because it provides much useful information in classifying different organisms. My preliminary impression of it was intrigued because I didn't know there even was such a thing as new biological nomenclature.

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.)

The lead section of this article is good. The first sentence states the definition of what the topic is. The section provides a good amount of background information about how this topic came to be, such as who founded this New Biological Nomenclature system. The contents are relevant to the topic and is pretty up to date, with the last update being on August 11th of this year. The article doesn't deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps. The article doesn't seem like it is written by a neutral point of view as there aren't any heavily-biased claims. Although, there is one part of the article that I wasn't too sure about. The writer of the article stated that one of the advantages to N.B.N. is that it's a reliable system since they were "(dis)approved by three other biologists." There is a good amount of sources used in this article and they are reliable. References used are not current to the date the article was last edited on. The references dates back from 1973 to 2013. The references don't have a wide variety of authors as it seems like seven of them are from the same person: Wim De Smet. There aren't too many other sources that can be used for N.B.N. The organization and writing quality is good with no grammatical errors. It is easy to navigate through especially with the Contents box. The images are well captioned and relevant to the topic and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Although, the writer could have used images of other types of animals since all but one of them are birds. There are no conversations on the Talk page. This article is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale and Low-importance. It is part of the WikiProject Tree of Life.

The article's overall status is good but could use some improvements. The strengths of this article is the amount of information included considering how many resources are available of this topic. The article can be improved with including more N.B.N. examples of different species. The article is well-developed.