User:LesbianComrade/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Minotaurasaurus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article due to my interest in the topic of these animals, as well as the short and possibly incomplete nature of the article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise and informative, while there is not a way for this article to have a summery of the other sections as it is one of the only parts of the article, it does summarize the overall topic. I believe that this lead section is overly detailed and long for a summery. The article is relevant to the topic and up to date. The article, as far as my knowledge reaches, has no missing content. This article is not about an underrepresented topic.

The article is from a neutral point of view. There are no heavy bias claims, and it does not try to sway opinion on the topic.

All statements have reliable secondary topics, they reflect the literature on the topic, are current, and represent a minimally diverse group of people. If better sources exist I do not know of them. The links work as well.

The article is well written, well organized, and doesn't have grammatical errors.

The images enhance the article, they are well captured, they adhere to copywrite guidelines, and are laid out appealingly.

The talk page consisted of questions and answers about the images, content, and restorations on the page. I do not know if it is a part of any wiki projects.

Overall it was minorly developed but had good information. The article's strengths are the information it provides and the reconstructions that it shows. The article can be improved with more varied sources, longer topics, and generally more information.

The article was underdeveloped and needed more work into obtaining new information.