User:Tmp1071/Evaluate an Article

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

Field research - Wikipedia

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 to evaluate because the majority of new skills that I am learning in BIOL 412H Lab includes field research methods. I considered the topic to be relevant to my course.

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 lead section of the article was concise and informational. It includes a general overview of the article and presents ideas that are later expanded upon. I think the statement beginning as "For example, biologists who conduct..." is unnecessary, as it delves deeper into the topic than needed for a general overview. Furthermore, this same idea is later repeated with the same depth.

Content:

The content of this article is relevant to the topic. My critique comes with the "History" section of the article. I think that this section strays too far away from a clear-cut history of the subject, and rather goes off into a small tangent on cultural anthropology. I would instead write strictly about the history of field research, and possibly present some pioneers of the subject.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article is neutral.

Sources and References:

For the most part, the article is thoroughly sourced with footnotes. I would suggest a source to support the claims created within the "Conducting Field Research" section.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The writing of the article is fairly organized within each header. There is some overlap between subject areas that could be improved upon, such as the explanation of cultural anthropology within the "History" heading. The writing quality is fair, although at times a bit informal.

Images and Media:

The images and media within the article properly support the writing and are relevant to the topic.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is much discussion within the talk page, which gives sight to collaboration and problem solving. It is reassuring to see that this article was not simply written by one person, but rather there were peer reviews and cross-collaboration.

Overall Impressions:

I found the article to be generally sufficient as an introduction to the topic of field research. My only comments are that some of the writing went off into a tangent. My biggest suggestion would be to rewrite the "History" section to include more information about the history rather than the application of field research, and just to add more information to this section overall.