User:MaxW795/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biometrics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is on a topic I possess background knowledge on. So, I was interested in seeing what new information I could learn about the subject. I also considered the fact that our class Wikipedia project is on underrepresented people who've made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Since biometrics is a unique blend of many STEM fields, I thought it appropriate enough to evaluate its article. Additionally, I felt it was important enough to review & evaluate this article because of the extensiveness of both nations & institutions around the world's involvement and use of biometrics. To describe my preliminary impression of the article, I was impressed by the scope of information provided; and the coverage of biometrics' interactions, connections, or implications pertaining to other distinct subjects/concepts.

Evaluate the article
Note: this is my first evaluation so I hope any points I raise are valid, & I do apologize for any inaccuracies in my judgements as a newer user. To begin my evaluation, I would commend the strength of the article's lead section and the degree to which it follows Wikipedia's parameters for a good intro. This is seen in the introductory sentence which gives a 'to the point' description of what the subject of the article actually is. The rest of the lead section is also used as it should be, avoiding fluff and excessive detail, making the final intro concise. This is an especially impressive feat when scrolling thorough the article and observing just how extensive the subject is, making the task of boiling it all down into some kind of introduction especially challenging. Additionally, while doing this, enough description of the article's major sections are also given with enough strategically left out to be explored by the later sections of the article.

The content of the article is well balanced, with extensive coverage of the topic's functionality, how the performance of different forms of biometrics are measured, biometrics' history, contemporary advancements in the field, and the ethical concerns/criticisms pertaining to biometrics. Appropriate discussion is also given to the concept of what about biometrics we still may not know, detailed by the section Likelihood of full governmental disclosure. Going forward, however, I would suggest further effort be put into developing the quantity of sources, with certain sections lacking citation in comparison to other sections. For example, I think the section Recent advances in emerging biometrics is fairly absent of supporting sources, with just the initial sentences having its three. The same can be said for the section Adaptive biometric systems, Performance, and others.

Overall, I would say the article is very well-developed. Any argumentative sections are reserved for their own sections (Issues and concerns, Privacy and discrimination, etc.), and the appropriate authors/speakers are accredited to their own ideas. The sheer extent of information on biometrics that has been compiled is astounding. I just think further research & work should be put towards fleshing out the references in parts of the article that are more sparse in citation when compared to other sections of the article.