User:Ironphd10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
Endurance running hypothesis: Endurance running hypothesis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose to evaluate this article because I am interested in this topic. It matters because it can be a good knowledge to have to instill belief in someone who wants to pursue running. My preliminary impression is that it briefly touches on important points but could expand more.

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.)

Lead section:

There is a good introductory statement. However the lead section does seem to be a little light compared to the content of the article. It doesn't have a brief description of all the important sections of the article.

Content:

The article's content is relevant, up-to-date, and very thorough. Topics that may be worth adding would be more comparisons to other animal physiological mechanisms behind the endurance running hypothesis.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is overall neutral. The article also offers opposing view points on the hypothesis. The article does not try to persuade a reader to either side of the argument. The article lists the facts for both sides of the story as is.

Sources and References:The article's content is relevant, up-to-date, and very thorough. Topics that may be worth adding would be more comparisons to other animal physiological mechanisms behind the endurance running hypothesis.

Tone and Balance:

The tone is overall neutral. The article also offers opposing view points on the hypothesis. The article does not try to persuade a reader to either side of the argument. The article lists the facts for both sides of the story as is.

Sources and References:

All sources are relevant and reliable sources. The links to the articles work and for the most part have been published recently with some that have been published within the last year or so. There are some articles that are published within the last few years. Although some are becoming old and potentially not up-to date with publishing date being before 2000.

Organization and writing quality:

The article had good organization with relative breakdown of sections. No grammatical errors were seen. The article was also easy to read and understand.

Images and Media:

There are only 2 images and there captions are more like titles. 1 images is laid out in an appealing way. The other image is not really that appealing and isn't the best captioned. The images do not seem to infringe on any copyrights. This could probably be the best area of improvement for this article as this is an interesting topic and could have lots of good images to offer.

Talk session:

The talk session focuses the fact that the article mentions neanderthals as ancestors the to the genus Homo. Which I believe is important, only partially for the reason why that was mentioned in the talk session, but more so because of this hypothesis, Homo erectus, outcompeted neanderthals because neanderthals were too big and strong to catch any prey after the Ice Age as prey became faster for them to catch. (referencing the book Born to Run by Christopher McDougall).

This was a part of 4 wiki projects: evolutionary biology, anthropology, athletics, running.

Overall:

I think this is a really cool article with a really cool topic. It is well written overall with some minor fallacies. The introduction could be redone better as well as the images. The article strengths are the list of physiological mechanisms listed and explained behind this theory. I would say this article would be mid-developed.