User:Kimberly.N1/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Forensic serology - Wikipedia

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 to evaluate because it is a forensic related topic. Also it was a simple article perfect for a first evaluation practice. My first impression of the article is that it is good, has a good lead and relevant content.'''

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: has a good concise topic sentence. and iterates what the article is talked about. The lead includes what a serologist does but in the body of the article the serologist profession is never talked about. The article has major sections in it that are not mentioned in the lead section. so while this lead section has some stronger areas it also has some weak areas.

Content Section: the major sections in the article are related to the topic they explain the different types of test used for the different bodily fluids, only the test for blood and semen are extensively detailed, while other biological fluids are not as detailed. Some of the other sections are not as detailed and are missing info like the saliva and urine, this makes the article a little unbalanced. while the content is relevant to the topic the content may be out of date, the most recent source is for 2018, but most of the content comes from articles before 2010.

Tone/balance: I notice that the article was able to stay neutral and does have any bias. It does not put one test above another; it gives the facts of both tests and their strengths and weaknesses.

Sources and references: all the sources are not current, the most current being 6 years ago, so I would suggest that more recent sources should be found and to see if these presumptive and conformity tests for serology have been updated or changed. Most of the sources are relevant to what the topic is about, there is one source number ten that is not so relevant to the topic but it can give clarity. The sources seem to be spread out between many different authors, and they come from good academic sources like peer-reviewed articles. The links I checked worked well, and brought me the appropriate article.

Organization and Writing Quality: This article is well organized with sub headers, which it easy to follow along when going through the different biological tests. I like that it is organized into the different biological substances in serology it helped to follow along as the reader. there were no grammatical errors that I found and became aware of. This article was well written, it was clear to follow and sometimes with forensic topics it is hard to understand but anyone without a forensic background could read and understand what they have read. it could use a little editing to make it more concise, there are some tidbits of info that are not needed, like when reference to a tv show, that's not very relevant.

Images and Media: there is only one picture in this article and it does not really help the reader to understand what the text has explained. It just shows what spermatozoa look like under the microscope, it has a good caption to explain what the picture is. the image could have been in a better placement of the page and a little bigger.

Talk Page Discussion: This page is a part of two different WikiProjects, the law enforcement and the crime and criminal biography. there are nothing on the talk page of this article, but it does have an evaluation of the page by another person

Overall Impressions: the articles overall status is okay. It feels incomplete, and that more could be said on the topic of serology. The article's strengths are that it is well organized and the tone of the article is good, but the content part of the article could use some updating. I would say that this article is underdeveloped and that more effort could be done on some of the other bodily fluids like saliva, and urine.