User:Henrymn1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eusociality

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This article furthers elaborate on a topic that I recently learned about in my most recent presentation. The paper I read examined genomic differences between different lineages of bees that had varying levels of eusociality. I want to further learn how eusociality may manifest itself in different species, and learn more about why its evolution may have been favored by natural selection. From a preliminary read, all sections have an extensive amount of sources cited and the organization is clean and easy to follow. However, more images and visuals in the second half of the article would help to further comprehension on topics discussed.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead section not only provides a thorough and complete explanation of what eusociality is, but also rather comprehensively underscores the conversations regarding this topic. All species that display eusociality mentioned in the lead section are further elaborated on in the article. Furthermore, the debate regarding eusociality in humans is also mentioned and later explained. However, there were some sections (physiological and developmental mechanisms) that could've been referenced in the lead section.
 * The article generally maintains a consistent, neutral tone. However, the use of the word "vigorously" when talking about the viewpoint of Wilson on whether or not humans were eusocial introduces a degree of subjectivity. Overall, it doesn't seem like any viewpoints were either overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * The sources are diverse and from credible, neutral sources that have been peer reviewed. There is a consistent amount of references to support statements made in the article. All hyperlinks are working and appropriately placed. When talking about the history, there's mention that a "point of no return" is an important criterion for defining eusociality. However, the source that states this direct quote and idea is not referenced.
 * The writing is concise, and can be easily understood by individuals with no background in the biological sciences. No grammatical errors nor spelling mistakes were detected, and the organization of this article was logical and didn't detract from the comprehension. However, an alternative way to organize this article is perhaps to first present all the biological information (taxonomy and mechanisms) before delving into theories and debates regarding eusociality.
 * This article has been listed as a level-5 vial class article, and is rated as a C-Class. For the most part, the criticism is constructive. These reviewers challenge the claims that the author makes (by suggesting a source cited, etc.) as well as point out syntactical and grammatical errors. However, some talking points are quite childish, and do little to offer helpful critique to the author of the article.
 * Overall, this article was comprehensive and presented information objectively. My main suggestions would be to reconsider the organization of the article and add more visuals towards the later sections.