User:Alastairroberts/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Neocalanus plumchrus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've chosen it since it's a copepod species that's important to my thesis project and because it seems as if there's a fair bit of information missing.

Evaluate the article
Lead:

The lead is concise, which is good. It is however, too short.

The lead could includes only a small historical blurb about the species. I think it would ideally introduce the ecological importance or more taxonomic information about the organism as well (to introduce sections).

Content:

The content of the article is up to date, relevant and somewhat up to date. I know a bit about this organism and to my knowledge there is no 'really important' new information that is not included. That said, as with the lead, the main body of the article is a brief overview of the species, much more ecological and taxonomic information could be included and expanded upon. Some molecular/cellular features are briefly mentioned but not adequately detailed, in my opinion.

Specifically in the 'Distribution' section, there is a great deal of information missing. I know there is more to be said about the distribution of this species as well as its seasonal cycles, which to its credit the article does mention.

Tone and Balance:

The article is neutral and the tone is balanced, facts about the species are reported in what seems like a reasonably unbiased manner. This is a strong point of the article in my opinion.

Sources and References:

The sources are good, but as was mentioned in the content section, a fair bit more information on this species is available in the literature, and the list of sources could be expanded to include more recent literature with a greater depth of information.

Organisation and Writing:

I have no issues with the writing aside from the fact that it does not flow especially well and feels a bit lurch-y from sentence to sentence.

Images and Media:

There is a lack of images in this article and it could use some. This copepod is pretty, pictures of it would be welcome. A phylogenetic tree could also be included to show its relationships within the calanoid copepods.

Talk Page:

The article is part of a project to expand articles on Arthropods, which I personally think is awesome. There is little other discussion, information on the talk page.

Overall:

Overall I'm glad Neocalanus plumchrus is getting some wiki-recognition, and this article is good in that its neutral and information is presented in a concise way. That said I think it is actually too short and missing a fair bit of interesting information, the writing is also a bit too dry and doesn't flow especially well. Good start, but it could certainly be expanded upon! (underdeveloped).