User:NatalieV10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Cold and heat adaptations in humans

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 I am interested in topics relating to science. The human body is a complex system and many people wonder how certain regions and organs work. This article matters because if our body can not adapt to the environment, we would not be able to survive in imperfect weather conditions. The article has a lot of info falling into topics and sub topics with a decent amount of references upon first glance.

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.)

Most of the content seems relevant. The last section could be improved a little bit at is went on a tangent about agriculture and being lactose in/tolerant. Some of the references are a little outdated as sources are used from as early as 1900. There is a lack of information for the Genetic Adaptations section so more can be added there.

The tone is neutral throughout the article. The viewpoint for the Cold subsection in Physiological Adaptations is underrepresented compared to the Heat subsection.

Some sources have workable links, but others do not. The sources support claims made in the article. The references are appropriate as many are neutral in tone, reliable and diverse in authors and publication.

On the talk page, the conversations are quite short. One talks about images and out of date references while another is curious about physical skin adaptations. The article is rated as C-Class with low importance and within context of 2 wikiprojects: WikiProject Medicine, and WikiProject Anthropology. The wiki discussion for this article is lacking since only two people have joined in, so it does not feel entirely different from a class discussion.

Overall, the article covers the basics of its topic. It needs some improvements by adding in more content with up to date sources. It feels like a first of second draft of what the final article can be, so it is underdeveloped.