User:Karlee15/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Archaeopotamus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I wanted to evaluate an article that at first glance was interesting, had something to do with the Field Ecology course I am taking, and seemed to have at least one thing that could be improved upon.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The very first paragraph seems to identify eveything that the guiding questions have indicated are needed. The first sentence is concise and would allow a reader to have an understanding of what an archaeopotamus is without haveing to read further. The lead paragraph does not identify what sections will be covered further on in the article. The lead sentence is concise and not overly detailed.

Content

The content of the article mainly talks about fossils of the Archaeopotamus, which is misleading from the title. It would be assumed that instead of only taking about the fossils of the species, the actual characteristics (which is a heading) would be described based on the knowledge the fossils' provided the researchers. It seems that the content is up to date. The missing content would be the fact that this article revolves mostly around fossils when the title does not indicate this to be the topic. The characteristics of the species such as location and time of living are briefly mentioned.

Tone and Balance

The article is written in a neutral tone and does not try to sway the viewer's opinion on the topic. Only facts about the topic are presented.

Sources and References

The sources are accurate for the material presented in the article. They do reflect avaliable literature on the topic seeing as the links are working and take the viewer to the article presented. Some of the sources for this article are dated more than 20 years old, one, however, is recent. The articles still present correct information on the topic. More articles can be found abou the topic and would likely be a good addition to the articles if only to back up the already present sources.

Oragnization and Writing Quality

The article is well written, though could be condenced down into an easier to read/understand wording. There are no noticable grammar or spelling mistakes in the article. It is decently well organized, though the "Characteristis" heading does not seem to go along with what the body under that heading is protraying. This heading many need to be changed to something more specific to the body paragraphs under it.

Images and Media

There are no images or media in this article.

Talk Page Discussion

There is only one comment on the Talk Page addressing the wording that seems to contradict itself in either paragraph. This wording is talking about size, and though states the same thing, does seem to be confusing for the viewer. The status of this article is "start-class" and "low-importance" in the two WikiProjects that it is of interest to (those being Mammals and Palaeontology).

Overall Impressions

The article's strength would be that is is concise and only presents facts without trying to sway the opinion of the reader one way or the other. The article could be improved by rewording some of the more repetative or confusion sections of the body paragraph. It coud also improve on its oganization as the headings are not very specific to the body and the overall look isn't wholly pleasant. The addition of images would greatly increase the article's appeal. I do not think this article is complete or well developed. It could improve on the things stated above and could be added to. More articles/sources would be able to make these additions and allow for the article to be more well rounded overall.