The Lead in this article gives a brief description of what the article is about. It hits on each major section of the article, while not being wordy. The article exposes the reader to the topic, but does not give away all of the information in the first section. The lead does not include information that is not later stated in the article. However, the lead does not discuss minor facts that are listed and elaborated on in a secondary subheading later in the article.
The article topic and the title of the article, Armadillo, is extremely broad. With this in mind, everything that is in the article is related to the subject of the mammalian Armadillo. There are five citations used from the 1980's, one from 1933, and two more are from 1998. The other 16 article are from within the last 19 years. I would consider this article up to date because the majority of the articles cited are recent. There is not any content that does not belong in this article, and each subsection has a fairly even amount of information in them.
Is the article neutral? This article does not have any sentences that state things in a basis way. All the information given is presented as a fact and not an opinion. There is no coaxing persuasion toward any particular facts. The downside to this article is that a lot of the facts are directed toward the nine-banned armadillo. They seem to use this animal as the base model for the armadillo. Therefore, it is over represented throughout the article.
The majority of the sources, especially the ones cited in text, were current. Also, the links to the sources do work and are able to be found. Every single source focuses on armadillos, and the literature does reflect the information from inside the sources. The sources are from legitimate outlets, such as Journal of Mammalian Evolution and Journal of Mammalogy.
This article is extremely easy to read because it's almost like it just state blunt facts with transitions words in between each topic. The article uses grammar markings correctly and I have not spotted in spelling errors. The article uses the headings correctly and sub headings correctly, which really help with organization within the article.
Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? This article provides an image that helps the reader to better understand the phylogeny of the armadillo. It also provides images that show the bone structure and the physical characteristics of the animal. The images are captioned properly, and have links within them. The pictures are mainly placed off to the side of the being of the article, but the phylogenetic tree is next to the section explaining the animals phylogeny for reference.
What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A lot of the talk space seems like the authors asking for help with trying to explain something from an article source, or asking for information about different subjects that they were not completely sure about. The article is related to wikiProject Mammal.
What is the article's overall status? The status of this article is c-class. This article has no strength rating, but I can say that if you are a novice looking for straight facts about the armadillo you would find them in this article. This article could be improved by having more information. The information given in the article was quality and of importance, but there was not a lot of information in each section. I think that the article is in between well and under developed, because it needs more information contributions in it.
