User:Sdang05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Neuroscientist.)

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 because the person I am researching, Steve Ramirez, is a neuroscientist. It matters because it will help me understand an important part of his life. I though the article was informative.

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 article's lead section clearly is concise and simple to understand. It defines what a neuroscientist is and how to become one. It does not outline the sections of the article. The article's content is relevant as it discusses the history of neuroscientists and how one can become one. It is up to date because it has an accurate list of the most recent Nobel prize winning neuroscientists. I don't think it discusses much about underrepresented groups. The article is neutral and has no agenda besides providing accurate information. All of the information is backed up by reliable sources. They are thorough and current. They are not very diversely written. Most of the articles are peer-reviewed though some are not. The article is easy to read and its sections are clearly identified. It also includes relevant images. The article's talk section has good reviews and minor edits about subtopics in the article. The talk section is civil and constructive. The article is well-developed. However, it could highlight marginalized neuroscientists. -~