User:Sleepwhenyouredead/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Talk:Ceratops

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 simply because I like dinosaurs. This article gives information about different species of ceratops and why certain species have been either classified or declassified as ceratops. I think that the information is said in a really hard to understand way--it is sort of just randomly put in there.

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.)

There was not a real lead section in this article. There was a really confusing piece of information that tried to link the Ceratops's ancestry to the Chasmosaurus, but says that the evidence is insufficient. This does not do a good job at introducing what a Ceratops is, and is mostly just confusing. This random and unsupported fact about the ancestry is also never discussed in the rest of the article.

The information is not up-to-date. There is a comment in the talk section about one of the ceratops classifications no longer being accurate, and the author has not updated anything since 2006.

The article does not really have a point of view. It seems to lay out random Ceratops facts without doing any sort of citing. Because the facts are just sort of strewn in the article, it is really difficult to read. There is no flow because the ideas do not connect very well.

There is only one reference website in the article, and it is a children's website. The website or any of its authors were never mentioned in the article.

There are no images or media.

None of the talk suggestions or edits were applied.

The article did list a lot of specific species of ceratops, if that is what one is looking for. There was not information about what a Ceratops really was, or what a dinosaur must be to constitute it being a ceratops. There are not many reliable references and no references to the only cited work are made. The information does not flow from what sentence to the next, and because it is essentially a jumbled list of facts, it is very hard to read and comprehend.