User:Melo1999/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating he Polar bear wikipedia article.

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 of my interest in environmental science, and I thought it would be interesting to see how much accurate information was available

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.)

Lead Section: The lead section provides a brief and substantial overview of the topic, and there is a contents section, containing and overview of all the articles major categories. The article contains all of information the mentioned in the lead.

Content: All information in the article is relevant up to date content about polar bears. It does not cover topics in relation to unrepresented population groups.

Tone and Balance: The article maintains a neutral position on the topic and covers each section with equal consideration.

Sources and References: The article contains many functioning sources, and provides one for every factual claim made.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well organized and is consistently written with a high quality of writing.

Images and Media: The article contains informative pictures that follow the encyclopedias standards and regulations.

Talk Page: The talk page includes discussion on a limited amount of errors within the document. One of which is a comment about possible inaccurate claims within the article; specifically about how the article claims that brown bear are very territorial animals. The article is also of interest for several WikiProjects, such as; Physical geography	(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance), Canada / Territories	(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance), Greenland	(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance), Norway	(Rated GA-class), Arctic	(Rated GA-class, High-importance,  Mammals	(Rated GA-class, High-importance),  Alaska	(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance), Climate change	(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance).

Overall impressions: After reading the article, I believe that the polar bear article is very well constructed and is deserving of being considered a high status article. The article's structure is written concisely and includes information that is all directly relevant to the articles topic. The content is also all supported with quality and relevant sources. The articles sourcing is also one area that the article could be improved in. A small portion of the article has sources that are potentially not entirely up to date. Considering the article as a whole, I believe that it is a complete article.