User:10cabbages/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Chaetognatha

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It seemed like an interesting topic and was an appropriate length.

Evaluate the article
The lead is concise and explains briefly what chaetognaths are, their anatomy, habitat, and classification. It introduces 2 of the article sections (Anatomy, classification) but incldues information about habitat that are not included in the article body. It also does not introduce 3 of the sections of the article.

The article covers the anatomy, reproduction, classification, fossil record, and interactions with viruses in similar amounts of detail. It doesn't include much information about ecology (only in the intro), which is seems like something that should be included. The information is up to date and has been edited recently (December 2022) and the article takes a neutral perspective.

Citations are used throughout the article. Peer-reviewed scientific papers, written by a variety of authors, are the main source of information in this article. Some are more recent, the oldest one is from 1967. The links for most of the articles work. Overall, sources seem strong.

The article is concise and easy to read with clearly defined sections that make sense. The section about infection with giant viruses seems a bit out of place, and a sentence introducing it and its significance in the lead might be beneficial. There are no dramatic grammatical errors.

Images help clarify the writing and have useful legends. More images may be helpful.

The article is rated as Start-Class and Mid-Importance and is part of the Animals WikiProject. There are some old discussions in the Talk page about disputable anatomical features. The most recent discussion pointed out errors in the taxonomy section and led to the section being removed.

Overall, the article is on the short side and gets information across in a concise, clear way. More images would benefit the article, as well as just more information in general. I would say the article is underdeveloped, specifically by including more details about ecology and physiology.