User:Capybari/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Capybara

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this because of a personal interest in capybaras, and I have some basic existing knowledge I can use to help me analyze it. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is well written and focuses largely on the scientific descriptions of capybaras and their behaviors.

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.)


 * The lead section is informative and clear, giving a general summary but still leaving many aspects for later parts of the article. All of the information within it is touched on later in the article, and it offers a solid summary of what most of the later subsections are about.
 * All of the content is related to the topic in some way or another. A decent emphasis is put on the phylogeny of capybaras but it is still a reasonable amount and contains useful anecdotes. The content appears to be up to date, and the revisions up to this point have all been helpful.
 * The article is neutral, and it is written is very scientific tones. There is no evident bias (nor are there any biases that can really be had for most of the content discussed). The content is balanced relatively well, with amounts of information appearing to be in proportion with the complexity and amount of data available for that information.
 * The sources are plentiful and helpful. Many of the sources used appear to be the best option for the category, and the links still work.
 * The article is concise and well organized. Heavy scientific language is used on some occasions but that appears to be a necessary decision, and the rest is easy to understand.
 * There are many images within the article that supplement the writings they border.
 * The talk page is well developed, with conversations dating back to 2008 and some as recent as this year. There seems to be some debate over the large number of images within the article, and it appears that there used to be many more.
 * Overall I believe this is a quality article that covers all of the information that is relevant for the topic.