User:Zoe3440/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Diagenesis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I had heard of diagenesis in class and was interested in learning more about it. It has overall relevance as a geologic process and relevance to my class for its role in fossil preservation.

Evaluate the article
The lead section was a bit unclear to me. I think that the first sentence could have been worded a bit more clearly and simply. The lead section as a whole is missing some of the more general overview information. There doesn't really seem to be a summary of the sections, and it talked a bit about concepts that I couldn't find elsewhere in the article.

The article doesn't really mention opposing points of view, or any equity gaps. It seems neutral to me. The article is a bit short, and could likely use some more content to fill in more gaps on the topic. However, what is there seems to be pretty in-depth and scientifically rigorous. Most of the sources are older (2009 and before) but there is one source from 2020. There are a good amount of sources for the amount of writing, and almost all of the sources seem to be papers published in scientific journals. While most of the article contains frequent citations, some of the lead section goes for a few paragraphs without citations. Most of the links I tried worked, but one led to an article that hadn't yet been created.

The writing of this article feels a bit stiff, formal, and full of scientific terms; I'm not sure how accessible it would be to a general audience. The writing style is at times a bit clunky or unclear as well. The organization of this article could be improved; besides the issues with the lead section, the next section ("Role in anthropology and paleontology") contains a lot of information about the process of diagenesis that I wouldn't put under that label. The images in the article were helpful, but were a bit clustered at the top of the article and could have been more evenly distributed.

The talk page contains some questions and suggestions for improving the article but doesn't seem to have been super active, especially recently. The article is level 5 vital, rated C-class, and part of the Geology: Cambrian Wikiproject. Overall, I think that the article has a lot of specific scientific information, but it could have been worded more clearly, organized better, and better structured to be more accessible to the general public.