User:FireWhirls/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Henry Kraemer

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article just out of curiosity of the natural science options. The article is important in the field of pharmacognosy since it's relevant to early studies. The article seems like there could be more details about the Dr. Kraemer's life and research conducted, although a reader could find this content in the external sources. As far as a primary impression, it is a good beginning.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise and gives a clear outline of what is discussed in the article. As far as content, I would be more interested in Dr. Kraemer's works in pharmacognosy, although the given content is relevant and up-to-date. Tone and balance are not biased in any fashion, and make Dr. Kraemer sound like an interesting individual. The references and external links work, are up-to-date, and reflect reliable and accurate information pertinent to the article. The article is organized well and has little-to-no grammatical errors. As far as images and media, there is a lack of pictures (minus the one of Dr. Kraemer). If more of Dr. Kraemer's research would have been included within the article, I would like to see pictures of physical and chemical properties of what Dr. Kraemer was studying. As far as the talk page, there were no discussions or conversations present on the talk page. Overall, as a summary biography, the article is well-developed. To go above and beyond, the author of the article should gather more resources about Dr. Kraemer's work and why it's important to modern pharmacognosy.