User:Egk006/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mitchell's water monitor

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because this is the one that I am thinking of actually editing for my project. This is a critically endangered species, yet there is barely any information about its conservation on this Wikipedia page, and I want to add that information. There are also only a few sentences for each section of the article, which isn't a lot of information, and I could add more.

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
Article Lead section:

This article does include a lead section, however, the section is only one sentence and only serves to classify the species and state where it is native too. While this does give immediate information, it does not include descriptions of each of the sections, or even mention what will be discussed in the coming article. The lead section does include information that is not found in the rest of the sections, which is the family that the species belongs to. The lead could be considered concise, however it does not have much content at all.

This article also lacked content: while it does list the fact that the species is critically endangered on the right, it doesn't include anything about their conservation, conservation efforts, or conservation status. The article is missing a lot of information and content that can be found from scholarly articles and journals. It also lacks in-depth information on the lizards' diet: it includes the general types of animals that they eat, but does not go into detail about their particular species or ones that are native to the same area.

The article is neutral, however, there isn't much to be neutral on. This article is still considered a "start" article, and needs a lot more work to get it to a completed state.

Most facts are backed up with sources, but the lizards' length isn't. This needs to be cited as it is a fact. But all in all, it does use a lot of linked articles, which is a good thing. It just needs more raw information. The sources are all from scholarly books or articles, but are largely focused on the lizards' classification, not their behaviors, or conservation, or endangerment. More varied articles, not just classifications of lizards, would be good to include. The links do work, though.

What is already written of the article is concise, yet there isn't much information to go off of. The article is, for the most part, well broken-down into sections, but I would add more sections so that someone could get the total picture from the article. Like I mentioned before, the article does state with the box on the right that the species is critically endangered, but it does not even include a section about that. I believe that that would be a crucial addition to the article.

It only includes one picture of the monitor, and this article could benefit from some more, maybe some close ups so that readers can truly understand what the lizard looks like.

There is only one post on the talk page, and that was from before 2018. It is just detailing a new bot addition to the website and how to use it, and that the person found one incorrect link.

The article does have many sections and covers a good deal of topics for how much content is there, but it needs more information. I would recommend for them to add new sections on its conservation status, and find more information to populate the lead section and body sections.