User:Many miles to go/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Carnivora

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 carnivorans are a group that I am interested in. Many carnivorans are keystone species and therefore a vital part of their ecosystem. My initial impression is that this article contains good information but could use better organization and clarification of some technical terms.

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.)

The lead section does not include any summarization of the topics present in the article. The lead section also includes duplicate information and could be streamlined. The content is relevant and accurate but it may be a bit out of date. This article has a neutral tone however, it does not accurately reflect the uncertainty of many of the relations between the families. The sources used are good but more may be needed to account for recent developments. The organization is where the article really suffers. The placement of many paragraphs is extremely questionable. It is clear and professional but the specific location of information is poor. The images adhere to regulations, are well captioned, and enhance understanding of the topic. They are not appealing and could use improvement. There is almost nothing in the talk page. This is a C-rated article. It has strong information but lacks proper structure and overall cohesion.