User:BotanicalLover/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Spider monkey

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it appeared very short and underdeveloped. The photos also did not seem very relevant to the headings of each sections, with the exception of a few.

Evaluate the article
The beginning of the article touches on what exactly the Spider Monkey is however, it put emphasis on multiple species of the genus Ateles but refers to "them being easily bred in captivity". It is unclear if it is referring to the Ateles genus as a whole or Spider Monkeys and could be specified a bit more. The headings for sub sections are organized well and clearly state what each section of the article is going to be about. The Anatomy & Physiology section is severely under developed; touching only on limbs/digit functionality, appearance, and reproductive structures. Information on internal anatomy, skeletal structure, etc., could be added to the article. Along with this, there are minimal images to show the actually anatomy besides a photo of the skeleton. Organ or circulatory system diagrams are just a few examples of potential photos for this section. There is also a notable emphasis on the brown spider monkey in particular in the Introduction and the Behavior section. The Behavior section touches on enough appropriate information that spans sleeping habits, anti-predation behavior, etc. My only qualm is that it jumps around in information and is slightly hard to follow at the end when it begins to switch from focus on behavior to the diet of the spider monkey. The same goes for the next section, titled Diet, is partly about the female scavengers and the sociology of group scavenging. This information would be more suitable for the Behavior section. Finally, there are Cultural Depictions section however, the article has no mention of spider monkeys in Religious Depictions, if any. As for the referencing and technical aspect, some remarks in the Reproductive section that are not backed by a source. Other than that, everything seems to be grammatically correct and properly referenced. The article has many sources that appear to be peer reviewed but there are some unreliable looking PDFs. I could be wrong, but from what I could see the information is quite a few years old.