User:Strangfeldaa/Evaluate an Article

Humanzee Article Evaluation

 * Humanzee: Humanzee
 * Cryptozoology is an interesting area, especially when it comes to C-list creatures. Humanzee sounded the most interesting of all of them.

Lead
The lead is possibly a little too short and barebones. It Includes some very specific information that feels like it was almost chosen at random, not quite summarizing the major sections but rather haphazardly taking facts from a couple of them with very little in the way of a common thread or flow linking them, and some of the other topics in the article go unacknowledged.

Content
Most of the content is relevant (to varying degrees) and up-to-date. At times it seems the focus of the section wanders into the territory of explaining things that aren't necessarily relevant enough to the topic that they'd be worth including, almost as if to pad out the length of certain sections.

Tone and Balance
The tone could use some work. At times, opinions are needlessly inserted (such as comparing the similarities in appearance between different types of dog and different great apes). The facts are wholly presented in an unbiased way and doesn't seem skewed towards one side or another on any issue.

Sources and References
After checking out a few of the sources provided, it seems the authors didn't adhere to the standards set out for us. Some of the sources are academic and credible, but some sources cited are documentaries and news articles. While they all seem to be fairly current, a few of the links don't work anymore.

Organization
This was my biggest issue with the article. It could do with an overhaul of structure, have some of the sections trimmed a bit and some split into two or more sections that are more cohesive. There are some minor formatting errors here and there, eg. regarding parentheses and punctuation but no spelling or grammar errors that I caught.

Images and Media
There are no images included in this article.

Checking the talk page
Pulling the curtain back, you discover why this article is so strange; the talk section is a war zone. I had no idea Humanzees were such a hotly debated topic. The article is part of the wikiprojects on Genetics, Primates, Paranormal, and Cryptozoology, and therein lies the rub. The article itself is a hybrid between an attempt to sum up the current scientific and academic consensus on genetic hybridization and a summary of the cultural cryptozoological fascination with such a hypothetical monstrosity, sometimes within the same section. There is much discussion about what's worth including, what's factual, whether to include the word "retarded child," and whether humans and apes are genetically related (yes, really)."'Wikipedia should be more serious!!! Your article has to be immediately removed!!! There is no evidence at all that humans and apes are related! Humans and apes were from the beginning two separate lines! The speculation that humans and apes could have had children millions of years ago is absolutlely stupid! People who mate with apes are totally sick and have to be imprisoned in lunatic asylums!!!'"

Overall impressions
All in all, I would say this article needs a lot of work to get it to a decent point where it's written and organized in a professional manner and accurately portraying the sum of the scientific community's understanding of the subject. If it gets anything right, it's that it doesn't seem to be skimping out on information, nor taking an egregious number of direct quotes from its sources.