User:Filippendo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Housefly

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to work on this article because it is a very common animal that you face in your every day life, which is also why I think that the topic matters. My preliminary impression of the article was that it contained a lot of references, had many headings with relevant information and that it was very cohesive.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The first sentence describes shortly the topic of the article. The lead section doesn't contain any information that is not found in the article. However, it does not briefly describe all of the topics in the article (e.g. topic 3.6). The text is not to detailed, but also contains a sufficient amount of details.

Content: I thinkt that a lot of relevant topics are convered and that they are covered to a sufficient extent. I think that all topics belong, but that they are not all necessarily up to date in the "relationship with humans" part. In the same topic the article does adress underrepresented groups. However, I think that this can be one further in the subtopic "litteratue".

Tone and Balance: The article is written from a neutral point of view

Sources and References: All the text except all of the lead section is backed up by reliable sources. The sources are current and thorough. The sources are written by fairly diverse authors. However, they could be more diverse. Not all links work.

Organization and writing quality:The text is well written and easy to read. The grammar of the article was good and the text is devided into well-organized sections.

Image and Media: The images are used in a good way of being informative, having proper captions and being placed aesteticly pleasing. The images adhere to the copyright regulations of wikipedia.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page reveals that the article has been read over and reviewed multiple times. There are discussions about sources and headlines etc. Wikipedia has also rated the article as a "good article" and is one of Natural Sciences Good Articles.

Overall: I feel like the article has been developed nicely. I like the list of topics, although I feel like there is potential for additions. The structure is good and I think that this an understandable and easy to read article. I think that the article is very close to being complete.