User:Zblue2/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
E. C. Pielou

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I thought it would be interesting to focus on a person. My first impression is that there is not much information on her page, except for a large list of her selected works.

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 article only has a single introductory sentence in the lead section.

Content
The article includes the key information on E. C. Pielou's professional/academic career. It is lacking in information on other aspects of her life; e.g., the intro sentence refers to her as a "Canadian statistical ecologist" but it also says she was born in England, and there is no explanation for that in the article.

Tone & Balance
The article seems to be written from a neutral point of view.

Sources & References
Many facts in the article are not backed up with sources. Most of the information in the biography section are not cited.

Organization & Writing Quality
The sections within the article reasonable, although there should be more. The writing is mostly concise and well done. In the very last paragraph, the writing style seems to change, and the message is not as clear – I found it hard to follow.

Images & Media
There is only one photo, which is of E. C. Pielou. The caption is lacking, in that it does not provide a date, and there are some grammar issues.

Talk Page Discussion
The talk page is very bare – the only record of an edit is one user who modified an external link in 2017. The article is of interest to several WikiProjects: Biography / Science & Academia, Ecology, Women scientists, and women writers. It is rate start-class and low-importance.

Overall Impressions
This article provides introductory information about the highlights of her professional and academic career. This information can be expanded and added to. I suggest including more specifics about the work she did, and including visual elements. I also strongly suggest that more details on her early and personal life be included. She was an accomplished women scientist when that was not a common profession, so something could likely be said about that as well. Finally, citations are needed throughout the article.