User:CPandCP/Evaluate an Article

Content: Everything appears to be relevant to the topic at hand. It covers a vast amount of perspective on primates ranging from their social status (something which is relevant to my researcher's work) as well as their physiology and locations. As far as the dating of the information, the oldest source I could find was from the year 1948, however it dealt with human rights established at the time. With 217 sources for this one article, I do not believe a lapse of information is one thing to be considered, but certainly the addition of more up to date information can always be pursued.

Tone: Extremely matter of fact, no use of "I" as well as presenting information with a source on almost every if not every other line. Very obvious that facts are the only things being explicitly said and that any concusion presented in the paper is one based on previous research. Personally I would have thought that interspecific associations could be fleshed out slightly more, due to them primarily presenting only predator/prey relationships.

Evaluating Sources: Yes the links bring me to the associated citation in the works cited, and that link carries me to a site which backs up the information which it is titled. Sources include research papers found on Onlinewiley as well as some bringing me to sites like national zoos or ".edu" sites to provide more information. Not a lot of noting bias, however it is not a very opinionated article.

Conversations dealing with the titling of "ape" versus "chimpanzees" in certain sections as well as professors and teachers jumping onto the discussion stage hoping for some further insight into their class discussions. It is part of the wikiproject primates which contains several articles that individuals wish to see implemented into the main page, as well as featured images.