User:Shainamgrace/sandbox

Wiki Project Sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mbeach5/sandbox

"Article Evaluation"

I chose a Wikipedia article about three-toed sloths. The article was incredibly relevant with descriptions of the sloth's evolution, behavior and characteristics. There are not many facts about sloths on the page. If one was looking for in depth information on sloths, this page would be lacking. It is very surface level and general. There are times in the article that very scientific words are used. Because of this, parts of the article are difficult to read for an average internet user. The tone was very neutral and unbiased. The article compared the three-toed sloth to it's relative, the two-toed sloth to give users a better understanding of the difference between the two. No view point felt over or under represented. There are many links in the article that direct you to the intended page. The links that I used as reference to fact check aligned with the article.M Most of the sources and links are to other wikipedia pages to help the user further understand the article. These pages seem fact based and not opinion based. The talk page only points out a few issues with the article. One user found a reference link that was not accurate. Another user pointed out the articles lack of information on what species of three-toed sloth the article is in reference too. Lastly, one user made note that the article title should be changed to three-fingered sloth instead of three-toed sloth considering the article explains that all sloths have three toes, and three-toed sloths just have three fingers. The article is in the C-Class and is a part of two WikiProjects: WikiProject Mammals and WikiProjects Central America.

Link to draft: User:Mbeach5/sandbox