User:Patronus19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mertens' water monitor - Wikipedia

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 to evaluate because it is a c class article about a cool species. I have heard of water monitors in the past, but never looked into specific breeds of them. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very short, with not a lot of information in general, and very few citations.

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

I think that the lead section is good. It gives basic information about the water monitor including the scientific name, the more commonly used name, where they are found, and how their nature.

CONTENT

I think that the content that is present is fine. It's relevant and up to date. However, there is not a lot of it so there is not too much to say

TONE AND BALANCE

The article seems to be objective and not trying to persuade you in one way or another

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

For the most part, the sources do seem to be from places that are credible. However, there are not a lot of sources.

ORGANIZATION AND WRITING QUALITY

The article is well organized and is very straight to the point.

IMAGES AND MEDIA

The images presented provide an effective way in describing the body of the animal and they are laid out in an appealing way with captions. However, the captions are not of great quality, not all of them have citations, and they do not necessarily enhance the experience.

TALK DISCUSSION PAGE

There are no real conversations on the c class topic. A bot did add archives to it though... I'm not quite sure on what that entails

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

I think that the content that is already present is strong. However, the article itself would be a lot better if there was just more information provided. I'm not sure if the lack of information is because there is not a lot of information on them, or if it is not that popular.