As recommended by Scholarpedia's "Instruction for authors", the article should start "with a one-sentence or one-paragraph dictionary-like definition". Such a definition must be provided in any case: I searched through the text, but I did not find such a definition.
The introduction section is written as a review of history. This is acceptable, but the enormous number of references (49!) is not well suited for an introductory article. Therefore, I strongly recommend to stick to the most important articles/books, i.e., try to restrict yourself to a maximum of 10 references.
The authors write "Some of these efforts where among the first to use coevolution or utilize multiparent recombination ...", however, they do not provide the specific references. This can be easily corrected by providing explicitly the references concerning coevolution and recombination.
The "Introduction" is too much overloaded with personal details, e.g., "In 1964, Dr. Fogel received his Ph.D. ...". This article should not be a bio sketch. (I'm not against providing such information in Scholarpedia, but this article is not the right place for that. It would be better to have a "Who Is Who" chapter for such purposes.)
The last paragraph of "Introduction" should be removed since it is rather a collection of work done in the evolutionary programming field than an introduction into that field.
In contrast to "Introduction" the "Modern Evolutionary Programming" section is rather short (the structure of the article is not well balanced). And if one reads the "Current Nomenclature" section, one gets the feeling that the authors do not want to use the term "evolutionary programming" any longer (BTW, there is spurious ".," in the last sentence of that section). If this is really intended as the final message, then the authors should indicate this already in the definition paragraph or in the "Introduction", stating that the term "evolutionary programming" is a thing of the past.