User:UpcomingDuckling/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Biomineralization

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think biomineralization is an interesting field that has significant crossover between chemistry, biology, and geology, so I expect many different contributions. Maybe this will make the article messy or maybe it will make it very refined. Before reading too much about it, I believe it is relevant to understanding some biological processes and minerals. The article is about the production of minerals by organisms.

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 has good structure with the information contained in the first sentence, then first paragraph, and then entire section. It is fairly detailed with many specific examples, but these example are necessary to portray the idea of biomineralization. All the examples provided are explored in more depth in the body of the article.

Content
The content of the article does a good job of explaining the different occurrences and compositions of biominerals. The degree of research done in different fields seems to determine the amount of content in each heading, which is understandable. The organization of the page is confusing sometimes, as information deep in one section could be more relevant to a different section. Sections have a lot of crossover, which may be a relic of different pages being combined to form this one page on biomineralization.

Tone and Balance
Overall, the article is neutral, and includes many diverse topics relating to biomineralization. There is a section about the controversy over the mineral status of biogenic crystalline substances. It provides information that mostly favors the inclusion of these substances in the mineral kingdom and offers no counterargument other than stating that the International Mineralogical Association does not include them as minerals. Even with this statement, it is referred to as a "point of contention."

Sources and References
Every declarative statement that I looked at had a citation. Most of these citations are good sources: peer-reviewed articles, science journals, and government websites. Links work and go to the correct website. I did notice that the list of minerals section was weirdly sourced with a citation pointing to Science Frontiers, a website very reminiscent of early internet of which I can't confirm the reliability.

Organization and writing quality
The writing quality is great, I did not detect any unprofessional writing or grammar. As mentioned in the content part of the review, the article does not flow well due to concepts repeating or missing from a section where they would make the most sense.

Images and Media
Images are excellent, cited, and captioned.

Talk page discussion
Two articles were merged into biomineralization: Biogenic minerals and Mineralization (biology). It is part of the WikiProjects animal anatomy, chemistry, geology, limnology and oceanography, and soil. The talk page is pretty short, it only has discussion about the list of minerals section and the merge with biogenic minerals. From this and the version history, it looks like there hasn't been that many changes since the merge, which would explain the disorganization.

Overall impressions
I like the article. I think it gets across a lot of the recent information and research related to biomineralization. It is a little disorganized due to the merging of multiple pages, and it also seems like there isn't total consensus on whether biominerals are minerals and also which species are biominerals. I think it is complete but it should be edited to reconcile or at least acknowledge that there are different definitions flying around.