User:Bella LC/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Fur

Fur

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it seems interesting and is a big part of animal anatomy.

Evaluate the article
Lead Seaction:


 * The first scentence clearly outlines the article topic.
 * The lead includes a brief description of the major sections found in the article.
 * There is no unrelated information presented in the lead.
 * The lead is a bit lengthy, but considering the scope of the topic this is relevent.

Content:


 * The content is relevent to the topic.
 * The content is up to date.
 * There seems to be no content missing or any content that should not be there.
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equality gaps. It also does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance:


 * The tone of the article is written neutrally.
 * The article is unbiased and is scientifically factual.
 * The content is well represented and non is over represented and under represented.
 * The article does not attempt to pursuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References:


 * Facts are backed up by reliable sources.
 * the sources are thorough and reflect the literature about the topic.
 * The sources are current and are all from the 2000s.
 * The sources are written by a wide array of people with varying credentials.
 * All of the links are working.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * The article is well written, well structured and easy to follow.
 * There are no or very little spelling mistakes. No obvious ones.
 * The article is very well structured into relevent sub-sections of the topic.

Image and Media:


 * The images are well chosen and enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * The captions are appropriate for the images.
 * The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyrite regulations.
 * The images are layed out when appropriate following the text.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * There are conversations about cutting copyrited material, adding images, general questions about some points made in the article as well as discussion about missing references.
 * The article is of interest to multiple Wikiprojects. It is rated as C-class.
 * There are really no differences.

Overall Impressions:


 * The overall status of the article is good. It is well written and has minimal changes needed.
 * The organization and structure of the article is its best strength. It is very easy to follow and appropriate links are included within the text.
 * More information could be added overall. It is a relative short aritcle. The lead paragraphs could also be shortened and made into other headings.
 * The article is well-developed.