User:Lfarthing19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Monkey

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I find monkeys interesting and they are a major animal throughout the world. My preliminary impression of this article was that it was well organized and has a few sources that could mean that it has good information assuming these are reliable sources."Notice that this has hardly any sources. This is an area you can really expand. ~"

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.)

In this article the lead section seems to be a little too detailed and focused, not giving a brief description of the major sections and also there is not a clear introductory sentence that shows what this topic is about. The content of the article is good, it is balanced and shares a good amount of information without focusing one one part more than another. However, I believe that there could be quite a lot more information that could be added to broaden the information available in this article. The article is neutral and does not focus one one viewpoint or something that is overrepresented. The sources for this article do not seem to be great as I clicked on one and it could not find the webpage for the source. There is a book that is cited which could be credible. I feel that there should definitely be a few more reliable sources in this article. The article is well organized and well written. It is not confusing and is clear with its sections. The article does include images and a cladogram that enhances the understanding of the topic with good captions and no unrelated pictures or other types of media. The talk page for this article does not have a lot going on but does have a few posts about spelling errors and also one about a lack of sources. The article is strong as it is organized well and written rather well. The article could use more sources and further readings as well as it could be expanded on and could have more sections included to make it a more complete article. I think this article is good but is not quite complete yet.