User:Aiden Brown/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Darwin's leaf-toed gecko

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because since this is evolutionary biology and ecology, I wanted to review an article about evolution, leading me to endemic species, which I find interesting, and lastly, I was drawn to the fact that "Darwin" is in the creature's name, who we've learned about in my class. It matters because this is an endemic species, which are typically species unique to a certain place, and with smaller numbers, they are more likely to face extinction. Initially, I felt this article gave some basic information, but was significantly lacking and could be improved.

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.)

The first sentence does give a good broad idea of the topic, the Darwin's leaf-toed gecko. It doesn't do much in the way of summarizing the main sections. It has some information that is not present elsewhere in the article, mainly the location where the gecko is endemic to. It is concise, but probably too much so, and could include more information from the other sections and provide more about the characteristics of this animal.

The content is relevant to the topic, as all of it is about the creature in question. The content could be more up to date, as there is very little, but more important information is known about this gecko than what is included. I believe the article could be improved by adding more to the existing sections and including more sections, for instance, the characteristics, discovery of the species, behavior, etc. The article does not discuss any equity issues as far as I can tell.

The article appears neutral and unbiased, only stating facts about this animal. There could be more representation of other viewpoints in terms of more information from different sources.

All facts seem to be backed up by reliable sources, though there are only a few sources, and the article could be greatly improved by including information from more sources to reflect the extent of what is known about this animal. Sources are relatively current, from the 2010s at the latest. The few sources show authors that seem to be from multiple locations around the world, but there isn't enough information to say it really represents marginalized individuals. There seem to be more good sources available from a relatively quick Google search, though one of the sources cited seems to be of quite good quality (from IUCN). Of the links present, most of the ones I've checked worked.

The article is pretty easy to read, and concise, but overly so. There appear to be no grammatical errors. There are organized sections present, but don't cover much in each section, and the range of sections could be improved on to include more aspects of this gecko.

There are no images present, which the article would likely benefit greatly from.

There are no conversations occurring in the talk section. It is part of the amphibians and reptiles wikiproject, rated of low importance, and classified as a stub.

The article overall is quite basic and would greatly improve by adding more information, more sources, more images, etc. It does cover a few basic elements of the topic, is unbiased and factual, and generally is a good start to an article. The article is underdeveloped, but could be a quality article with the suggested edits implemented.