User:Skeuwter/Evaluate an Article

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

Pauropoda

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 it pertains invertebrates, and because it looked contain solid and interesting information.

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 articles lead sections appears to contain appropriate information on the topic. It is concise and brief, without skipping over any necessary details. The content of the article is relevant, and the citations are relatively recent. I don't believe that there is any information that is really missing, although the article is relatively short. The article holds a neutral point; it simply gives background information on pauropoda. The sources of the article come from a wide variety of places, and their information seems to be properly cited and up to date. The writing quality is concise and to the point; there are no extraneous bits of information. There does not appear to be any large grammar or spelling mistakes, and the information that is in the article is organized well. The images in the article are relevant, and they help give a better understanding on the subject. I believe that the images all follow Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The way the images are organized is beneficial to the article. In the talk section of this article a couple things were talked about. First was something about the content of the article; it had to do with how pauropods are blind, but also sensitive to light. This caused confusion. The other thing mentioned in the talk section was inconsistency in the sources, these seemed to be fixed now. The article was rated overall to be a "B." The information the article currently has is good, but it could be lengthened.