User:BlossomViolet/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Anal gland

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Preliminary impression was that the article was brief but well written. I chose it because I think there are aspects of it that could be expanded upon.

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.)

Lead Section:


 * Introductory sentence is concise and provides a brief look into what the article is about
 * The lead paragraph very briefly introduces the major sections ("found in mammals" --> expanding on which kinds of mammals in the major sections)
 * Lead paragraph does specifically mention that the anal sacs are found in carnivores such as wolves, bears, sea ottters, etc... but does not expand any research into why carnivores specifically have this gland vs. other animals
 * Lead paragraph is very concise and easy to understand for those with no scientific background

Content


 * The content in the article is relevant to the topic of the article
 * Content seems up to date. Article history shows that it has been expanded on in recent years.
 * Content about specifics when it comes to why carnivores specifically have this gland vs. other animals. Talk page mentioned talking about the evolution of the anal gland, this may be a good topic to add in the article.

Tone and Balance


 * Article written from a neutral point of view, no opinions are shared.
 * No claims that are biased towards a certain position and no viewpoints that are over or underrepresented.
 * Article does not try to persuade the reader towards any specific viewpoint

Sources and References


 * No sources seem to be cited for the Skunks and Beavers section of the article
 * Links work

Organization and Writing Quality


 * Article is concise and easy to read.
 * No spelling or grammatical errors.
 * No reorganization of the article is needed at this time

Images and Media


 * Images enhance the knowledge on the topic and are well-captioned

Talk Page Discussion


 * Conversations on the Talk page are brief. Some mentioned ways that the article could be improved or way that the article has already been improved. Mentions of why things were/should be removed, or why things were/should be added.
 * Article is rated as a start-class article. Is part of "Veterinary Medicine", "Animal Anatomy", and "Dogs" WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions


 * Article's overall status is start-class
 * Strengths include it being concise and well written. Easy to understand for people that do not have much of a science background.
 * Article could be improved to include more research on other animals and the animals that are already mentioned. Could also be improved by including a section on its evolution, if there is any research on that.