User:Ocsb1902/Evaluate an Article

Monkey

I'''s everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracts you?''' I would say yes that everything in the article is relevant to the topic, to me it is just kind of confusing and all over the place though, there is a bunch of important information about their history, and relationship to others.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?'''

I think going into depth of all types of species of monkeys could be something to add, and the fact that we are closely related to some of them, other than that there is a bunch of information about their history, phylum, and relationship to others.

Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresented or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?

There is no group of the monkey family that is not at least mentioned in the article, I would say though that the article describes monkeys as a whole, even though they are vastly different from each other.

What else could be improved?

I would say that the only thing that could be improved would be talking about all the species of monkeys individually.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?''' The article itself comes from a very neutral position not trying to convince you of anything, it is just giving you facts.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would say that a viewpoint that is over represented would be monkeys relationship with other species instead of facts about themself

'''Does the Check a few citations. Do the links work?source support the claims in the article?''' Yes the citations work, and the sources support the claim in the article

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications? Everything about the sources comes from a appropriate reference, there is no bias, and the sources are neutral, as well as there are sources from many different authors

'''How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?''' This article is from the wikiprojects

I think the main thing that this article could improve on is the cohesiveness in the beginning of the article, it has no flow really, and jumps everywhere