User:Rsc262/Evaluate an Article

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

Cephalopod intelligence

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 interested in the topic of this article because it explores marine biology and biological intelligence in relation to evolutionary biology. Looking at the intelligent behavior of cephalopods is very important because it gives scientists insight into the history of cognitive evolution and also emphasizes the extent of unknown life of the marine world. These mysteries hold the answers to questions about intelligence and more that humans could use to expand our understanding of life on earth.

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:

The first sentence very clearly and briefly provides overview of the topic at hand. The following paragraph adds further relevant details of the concept of intelligence and the observed intelligence of cephalopods and why it is unique to other invertebrates. There is also mention of why this topic is a revolutionary discovery in the advancement of knowledge of cognitive evolution, urging the reader to continue.

Content:

The content is categorized by types of demonstration of cephalopod intelligence. It describes behaviors as they are observed in nature of octopus, with some details about how these behaviors are being researched and theories as to why certain behaviors take place. Depending on the audience, their could be more details about research and why behaviors occur, potentially connecting them to evolutionary concepts. However, for the general reader the level of depth is adequate.

Overall, the article had a consistently neutral tone and all sources were properly cited. The included pictures were relevant and captions are clear and useful. I think the article is strong, yet very basic information and depth could be added.