User:TheoW14/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Paleoanthropology)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(As a student majoring in biological anthropology, the field of paleo-anthropology is fascinating. It gives us a better picture of how we evolved by allowing us to compare and contrast physiological features of other fossil hominins. The first impressions after reading the article are that is seems outdated.)

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The lead sections for the article are clear and concise, and provide the reader with what to expect in the following paragraph(s). There is one formatting issue, but this can be fixed very easily.

Content: The content seems to be a little outdated, as some of the information in there has been changed since ~2006. As well there is a heavy emphasis on the history of the discipline.

Tone and balance: The article comes from a neutral point of view (no biased claims), and there are no instances of the author trying to sway the reader in a certain direction.

References: The references provided vary in credibility. Some references come straight from academic journals and papers, others are from uncredited websites. There are a couple of citations who still require full referencing

Organization and writing quality: The writing quality is good. There are a couple of sentences that need work, either to simplify the sentence, or make the sentence more available to the public. As well, the organization of the page could use formatting in order to flow better.

Images and media: There are better images that the author could have used in order to make the page more aesthetically pleasing. However some the images that were used definitely help the reader grasp the information.

Talk page discussion: The discussion of most importance going on mentions that this page seems to be more so about the history of paleo-anthropology more so then paleo-anthropology itself. The article is rated as a "C", and is also of upmost importance, so there is much information that can and should be added.

Overall impressions: Overall impression of the article? Although there were a lot of things that need fixing, the article has potential to become insightful and provide the viewer with a better understanding of the topic. The articles history section is quite strong, however the article seems focused only on the history. I would assess the articles completeness as poorly developed.