User:Janemwestcott/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) Cold and heat adaptations in humans

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 this article because it is about a topic that many who have taken high school science, like myself, have basic understanding that humans have adapted to live in different climates, but few know the more specific details about what allows humans to endure different temperatures and what adaptations are more common in different parts of the world. This article sparked my interest as someone who has travelled from a warmer climate to a colder climate and is having to adapt to it with different clothing and lifestyle choices. Overall, this article is quite concise, though it is clear it is not a widely sought after topic due to the little detail provided. I enjoyed the format of the article as it was clear, but also it made me think about what I could potentially add to it as a writer as well.

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.)

In the lead section, the article starts off strong with a concise overview of what is to follow. It outlines the sections that will be covered without getting into too many specifics. However, it does go on to discuss hypothermia and hyperthermia which are not further discussed. It felt like the placement of that section should have been put later on in the article.

The content of the article is relevant throughout. It would have made more sense to establish what hypothermia and hyperthermia were later on when discussing how humans have adapted to different climates in order to flow better. However, this article covered three main subjects: physiological adaptations, culture, and genetics, giving the article the potential to be a well rounded synopsis of the topic at hand. The culture segment could have been more detailed, giving more examples from a diverse range of places to help the reader better understand how humans have adapted to climate via their technological advancements. The writer was clear that there was not a lot of research done regarding genetics and human adaptations, making the article transparent and did not leave the reader wondering why information was missing.

The tone and balance of this article is strong throughout. It maintains a neutral tone, not attempting to persuade or insert implicit biases. The article does not include any fringe viewpoints, likely due to the fact that there is little research available on the topic.

The sources used in this article are all academic sources, with each point made by the write backed up by one of the sources. The articles uses a wide variety of sources, most of which are from the medical field. The sources used are quite diverse, with only a few being from the same encyclopedia or journal, such as Temperature and Smithsonian Magazine. However, some of the sources should be updated to include more relevant sources.

The article is clear and easy to read, with each idea broken down for the reader to some degree. However, because there is so little information, there are few things that have to be understood. The article is broken down clearly with applicable subtitles. There are no grammatical errors.

This article does not offer any photos to enhance the understanding of the reader. This would be particularly helpful regarding how cultures have adapted to temperature and climates, particularly with the clothing they wear or technology they have created to be able to function in a specific climate.

This article has little on its talk page, most of which are suggestions on what to include to enhance the article such as images and potential limits to what humans can endure. It is a part of the WikiProject Anthropology and Medicine. The article is rated a "C" on the project's quality scale and "low" on the importance scale.

Overall, this article is underdeveloped. It is a very interesting subject, but there is so little information that it is hard to grasp the importance of the topic. Its main strength is the neutral tone that it uses, posing no place for potential persuasion. However, this article needs more information, more updated sources to find the information, and images to support it. The article is too short to give a well rounded scope of the topic and does not go in depth enough, particularly regarding culture, genetics, and potential limits that humans may face. ~