User:WikiCardy223/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Angonoka tortoise

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because reptiles are a class of animals that many people think less of and don't pay attention to. I also thought it was interesting to pick an endangered species because there is most likely not a lot of information that is in the article. I think the fact that it is an endangered species means it should have an article that does a good job of describing them so people can learn about them and become better advocators for that species.

Evaluate the article
- The introduction to this article first clearly states what the articles topic is going to be about with a good introductory sentence. This section gives a very basic sentence of what each portion of the rest of the article will be about but it doesn't seem to flow very well. I find the introduction to be choppy and more of a list rather than a flowing and concise introduction. information in the introduction is repeated in its according section and there doesn't seem to be any information in it not seen in the rest of the article.

-All of the article's topics and are relevant and up to date within the last two months. There isn't any content that seems to be missing but I do thing that it should be structured differently. The conservation section is at the end which makes sense but I think it would be better structured if the population section was before this then following that (going up in the article) distribution and habitat, ecology and behavior, taxonomy, and description.

- There isn't much of a bias to be had toward this topic but even so the author is very neutral in explain throughout the article. Through reading the conservation section gives some support toward the protection of the tortoise but not in anyway that it causes the article to be misconstrued.

- The article lists mostly peer reviewed sources such as scientific papers that are current for the topic they are writing about. There are some sources that don't seem as reliable, this was a website that was just stating tortoise facts and it had no sources listed. I was also able to find one link that didn't pull up a website and said that the website was no longer available, I guess this could also mean that a server had gone down as well.- The article is choppy to read and feels more like ready a list of sentences and facts rather than an article that flows together. There is a good amount of content that could work really well together if it was structured better and put into full sentences rather than run-ons. The author could have benefitted from using more transition words. I think the sections are broken up well and there were no spelling errors that I could spot only run on sentences mostly.

- There are two images of the Angonoka tortoise as well as one image of a map location of where they are native. I think the location picture could be captioned better and that there could be more images of things like what the tortoises clutch looks like as well as images of the conservation center they are being held at for their breeding programs. The images adhere to the regulations and are also cited. The are laid out in a visually appealing way as well.

- There are some conversations going on about the references like what I stated earlier as well as talking about how the article name was changed at one point in time. This article is rated a B-class turtle article/ low importance and is a part of wiki project turtles and wiki project Africa. The article was intensely edited in 2011.

- My overall impression of this article was that it had interesting content but it just needed to be displayed better structurally, its sources need to be reevaluated, and the sections need to be looked over to make it easier to read without it being a list/choppy reading. The fact that the article was supposedly edited by a class in 2011 is surprising considering it's not extremely well developed. The content is there it just needs reworded with sources that are more reliable.