User:Erynfowler/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anatomical plane

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to me, my major (biology), and my current coursework (particularly in my vertebrate anatomy class).

Evaluate the article
The lead section is brief, while giving a sufficient overview of what an anatomical plane is, what it is used for, and a quick description of the three most common planes. However, the lead does not give an overview of the article's main sections. The content of the article is relevant and (to my knowledge) up-to-date. It does not deal with an equity gap. The article is written in a neutral and factual manner. There is a serious lack of sources, as there are many assertions and even lengthy paragraphs that do not have an attributed source. There is a warning at the top of the article that the content relies largely on a single source. The links for the sources that are included do work. The article is mostly clear and concise, and I did not note any grammatical errors. Several diagrams that help facilitate understanding of the topic are included, all with image attribution. There has not been any discussion on the talk page since 2015, where a proposal to merge the pages of individual planes was left without a consensus. The article is rated as C-class. While the article does do a good job of defining and explaining both common planes and the concept of anatomical planes as a whole, it has many unattributed statements and the entire article has only two sources. Most sections are very brief, while the "comparative embryology section" is very lengthy and wordy -- again without a citation. This makes for an oddly-distributed article. Adding sources, toning down the lengthy sections, and adding to some of the shorter sections would greatly benefit the (currently underdeveloped) article.