User:Kkruan/Evaluate an Article

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

Biologist

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 am a biology student, so it is interesting what Wikipedia has to say about something I've never had to look up before. It matters because people who are looking into careers or what different occupations do will possibly use Wikipedia as a basis for their perceptions.

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 lead section gives a good overview of what a Biologist is and is fairly concise, as well as the following contents and categories of the rest of the page below it.

The article's content also seems quite relevant and the categories chosen are also quite good at summarizing notable information, but is generally lacking in detail especially in the "History" section as well as the "Honors and awards" category. Additionally, the web page primarily focuses on Biology from a Western/European perspective.

In terms of tone, the article appears neutral and unbiased, besides the focus on Western/European history. I also do not believe the article is pushing a certain narrative or bias.

There are a few locations in the article where a citation could be used and/or are missing, and there are also a few sentences that have already been marked for needing a citation. Most of the citations at the bottom of the page are fairly recent (within ~15 years). Citations in general are from published articles in reputable journals.

Organization into categories is generally good, but within categories, there is a bit of a lack of flow between paragraphs, as some sections just have factoid leading into next factoid with no clear line of reasoning. Grammar and sentence structure appear fine.

Pictures in article are relevant and appropriate, and captions describe pictures well. Most of the pictures do not help aid the understanding of the topic of the page itself, but are rather just pictures of historical figures that are relevant to the field of biology. An extra picture or two could be added about different kinds of biologists in different settings to help visualize the different branches of study.

The last comment left on the "Talk" section is 2021, though the discussion happening on the page is sparse. The page is rated a C, and is part of the WikiProject on Biology.

Overall, the page seems a bit incomplete and lacking detail and flow, but nonetheless still gives a decent overview about the topic. Clicking into the page about "Biology" may provide more detail about the field if one is curious.