User:Thekingguy7/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Gray fox

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I encountered a grey fox on a camping trip in California over the summer and would love to learn more about them. My overall impression of this article is that it is well written, but that it seems to me that more information is out there that could be added.

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 thought the lead section was very good. The first sentence would immediately identify what the animal is to so someone who doesn't know about it. The further you read the intro, the more you start to get an overview.

Content: All of the content in the article was relevant. I am not sure if the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The article is written with a neutral tone of view. It was all written in the least persuasive way possible.

Sources and References: The sources are quite thorough, current, and backup the information in the article. Most of the links to the articles work, though some articles are less sound than others. Source 22, "Foxes World," seems unreliable.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article has a good flow and the writing is free of major errors.

Images and Media: The images enhance understanding of the subject and are laid out in an appealing way. Overall, a great use of images.

Talk Page Discussion: From the talk page section, it is unclear if the article is part of any WikiProjects. Most of the discussion in this section has to do with the diet of the Grey Fox and wether a line in the article that states the shape of the fox's eyes are ovular is factual.

Overall Impression: I think this is mid-tier article. It's merits are that it is moderately fleshed out and has lots of reliable sources to back it up, but there is hardly any discussion around the article to verify wether or not some of the facts stated in the article are true or not.