User:Aosborn01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mugwump (folklore)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was rated c-class and had a short lead section.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead section of this article is concise, but it's also too short because it doesn't cover all the major sections of the article.


 * The Etymology section doesn't need to be so long and detailed. It borders on being overly detailed about topics that are unrelated to the Mugwump and its lore.


 * The two fishermen's account of the creature's appearance is not a great source. What is good, though, is that the article makes it clear when claims about the Mugwump are alleged. It's tone is neutral and not trying to convince the reader of the lake monster's existence.


 * Since this is a folkloric creature, there are no pictures of it in real life, but an illustration could give the reader an idea of what its supposed to look like. The picture of Lake Timiskaming could still be included with later mentions of the Mugwump's habitat.