User:Tireddino/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I recently found out about the southern tamandua and find them really fascinating.
Evaluate the article
[edit](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: The lead section provides a pretty good introduction, but I think adding an extra sentence or two would be really beneficial. Adding in the information about this animal's most distinct features could be helpful.
Content: This article covers many different aspects of the southern tamandua, but the conservation section is much smaller than every other section.
Tone and Balance: The tone is neutral throughout the entire article. As for balance, it would be good to include more information from countries where the southern tamandua resides.
Sources and References: There are 12 citations and 2 general sources, which all seem credible. This article could certainly use some more sources though.
Organization and Writing Quality: The organization is very clear, although the diet subsection might work better as a main section. The writing quality seems good and I don't see any grammatical issues.
Images and Media: There are a few pictures, but I think adding on of the southern tamandua climbing could be helpful to show readers their climbing ability. A few of the pictures might benefit from more specific captions.
Talk Page Discussion: This is a start class article and is part of the WikiProject Mammals. There is not much on the talk page, but one Wikipedian did talk about replacing a photo that was actually of the northern tamandua.
Overall Impressions: This start class article is very nicely written and covers a wide array of information on the southern tamandua. To improve it, I think adding more information, especially to the conservation section, and improving the lead section would be great first steps.