User:Lbeqaj/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Eusociality

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 the paper I read for our first symposium was investigating the genetic basis for eusociality. Eusociality matters because it gives us insight into the evolution of social behaviors across different species and it is the highest level of social organization. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is very thorough and had a lot of good sources including a significant number of peer reviewed articles.

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 does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic, it does not include information that isn't present in the article and it is concise. However, it does not provide a brief description of all the major topics of the article, but it does for most of them.

The articles content is relevant to the topic, as it covers the history of eusociality, eusociality across different species, the evolution of eusociality, and it even goes into ecology and physiology related to eusociality. The page was last edited on April 16th, 2021, and it references recently published sources as well, suggesting the content is up to date. I do not believe there is missing content or content that does not belong. The article covers eusociality, which is not entirely an underrepresented topic but it is a topic where there is still much more research to be done.

The article reads in a fairly neutral tone and does not make any major biased claims.

There is a thorough list of references, most of which are peer reviewed articles, that date to fairly recently as well. The links work when you click them.

The article is easy to read and follow, and no grammatical errors stand out.

The article includes 5 images that are well captioned and laid out in a useful way. The article could use some more pictures.

The talk page is filled with pretty harsh critics of the article. Some of the posts are productive and professional and some are not at all. Most of the posts are editing the grammar of the article, asking for clarification on some of the history and claims made. Some of the posts on the talk challenge certain claims as well. The article is in the class C category with a completeness score of 93. I think the article's strengths are the number and quality of resources it has as well as its thoroughness in the number of relevant topics it covers. I think the article is well developed. I think some of the grammar can be improved as well as the visual parts of the articles.