User:Jocedye/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Evolutionary biology

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 due to its relation to the class and my experience with this topic. This topic is the underlying foundation for all biology related fields. An understanding of this builds the foundation to learning about subfields within biology. This page was informative but did appear to be very basic. For an uninformed reader, this page would give them a somewhat basic understanding of evolutionary biology.

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.)

The introductory section of this article is adequate. The introductory sentence does describe the article's topic but could be more clear and concise. The major sections of this article are not mentioned or discussed. The overarching theme of evolution is given but mainly in how it is applied to modern science today. The introduction did what it needed to but could have been a little more inclusive to the information that was given later in the article. Different fields of study are then discussed in relation to how they study evolution. This section gives a broad overview of how different scientific fields view and use evolution in their studies. Then, the different types of evolution were discussed. These were brief but made the point. For a reader wanting to know the bare minimum, this section gave them that. They consisted of a definition and an example. When discussing the mechanisms of evolution, it felt that the article did not explain how the mechanisms worked to evolve a species. It would have been helpful if the article gave more background and explanation with each definition. In the "History", "Evolutionary Developmental Biology", and "Phylogenetic Trees" sections, there is very little information with links to their main Wiki pages. It would be helpful to have a little more information to keep the reader from having to go search somewhere else. The "Homologs" section was very brief and needed more information. In the sections regarding the current research, broad topics are mentioned but no specific research is given. The drug resistance section took an opinionated approach to convince the reader the importance of finishing a round of antibiotics. There were several grammatical errors in this article. The sources were credible, however, some facts needed citations and better sourcing. While the article was clear and concise, the writing style could be more professional. The images needed better captioning describing what the picture was with a source and correct grammar and capitalization. The talk page did recognize the article as a WikiProject. It was rated as a C page. The article is overall very easy to read and understand. This article does need a facelift in precise facts and professionalism.