User:JessicabowmanOU/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anthropomaximology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article on anthropomaximology because it combines multiple subjects that interest me including anatomy and physiology.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: I feel that the lead section was good. It had an introductory sentence that clearly stated what anthropomaximology was. I feel like the lead section is a great start to the future article on this topic, it just needs stronger sources.

Content: Unfortunately, there really is not that much information available on this topic. This wikiarticle is only 1 paragraph long, and it looks to be the lead so it will definitely need to be expanded with more information on the subject. I would suggest looking into scholarly articles on where anthropomaximology originated as well as the time frame it originated in. I would provide a history on the subject as well as present day anthropomaximology and who/what benefits from anthropomaximology.

Tone and Balance: I feel that the tone of the article is good so far. It does not read as biased in any way and it looks consistent from sentence to sentence.

Sources and References: I think that the source quality is subpar and could definitely use some improvement. The first source listed was actually a forum that dates back to 2012. The second source that was listed came up as a website for a rowing team and after looking for a bit, I could not find anything relating to anthropomaximology on the site. The third and final source that was listed did not have a link at all, so I was unable to check that source. The source was also old, dated 1987. I would suggest looking into peer reviewed articles and other scholarly articles to help back up the information that is presented currently on this article and information that will be added in the future.

Organization and Writing Quality: There really is not enough information on this page to evaluate organization and writing quality of this particular article.

Images and Media: There are no images or media links provided within the article.

Talk Page Discussion: There are not any discussion in the talk section of this article. This article falls under the WikiProject Physiology and it is currently rated 'stub-class' on the quality scale and 'low importance' on the importance scale. We have not really talked about this topic in class just yet, but we start anatomy this coming week.

Overall Impressions: My overall impression on this article is underdeveloped and poorly developed, and it needs a great deal of work to get to where it needs to be. It only consists of 3 sentences at the moment, so content is for sure lacking. The 3 sources that are provided could definitely use some work. . I think that with the addition of more up to date sources and scholarly and peer reviewed articles, that this wikiarticle can turn out great.