User:Amb1315/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Turritopsis dohrnii
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Wanted to know more about Immortal jellyfish

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Turritopsis dohrnii, also known as the immortal jellyfish, is a species of small, biologically immortal jellyfish found worldwide in temperate to tropic waters. It is one of the few known cases of animals capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary individual. Others include the jellyfish Laodicea undulata [sv] and species of the genus Aurelia.

Like most other hydrozoans, T. dohrnii begin their life as tiny, free-swimming larvae known as planulae. As a planula settles down, it gives rise to a colony of polyps that are attached to the sea-floor. All the polyps and jellyfish arising from a single planula are genetically identical clones. The polyps form into an extensively branched form, which is not commonly seen in most jellyfish. Jellyfish, also known as medusae, then bud off these polyps and continue their life in a free-swimming form, eventually becoming sexually mature. When sexually mature they have been known to prey on other jellyfish species at a rapid pace. If a T. dohrnii jellyfish is exposed to environmental stress or physical assault, or is sick or old, it can revert to the polyp stage, forming a new polyp colony. It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation, which alters the differentiated state of the cells and transforms them into new types of cells.

Theoretically, this process can go on indefinitely, effectively rendering the jellyfish biologically immortal, although in practice individuals can still die. In nature, most Turritopsis are likely to succumb to predation or disease in the medusa stage, without reverting to the polyp form.

The capability of biological immortality with no maximum lifespan makes T. dohrnii an important target of basic biological, aging and pharmaceutical research.

The "immortal jellyfish" was formerly classified as T. nutricula.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise but could be pared down a bit more

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Last update/edit was in May 2020 but most information was from around 2008 and before then
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, doesn't give a full picture of the topic and needs more work

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Fairly neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * A few, mostly in the sections talking about the immortality of the jellyfish from a scientific excitement pov
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Scientific viewpoint of jargon and talking about experiments, as well the focus on the cultural aspects and biological immortaliy
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really, it's just aimed more for scientific curiosity, rather than giving a full comprehensive work up on the animal

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most recent source is from 2012, but most are before 2008
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Concise and clear but very science jargon heavy
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * only one photo of the jellyfish that doesn't give good relative scale and coloring of the jellyfish
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * has the scientific name of the jellyfish and nothing else
 * concise but doesn't add new material
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * kind of, picture is small and could have better lighting as currently it's a dark background of the ocean

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * talk about picture identification on whether the right photo was chosen for the animal, origin place of the jellyfish was talked about and cultural references
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Article is rated C-Class and Low-Importance

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Average or C-Class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * very helpful start on knowing the scientific genus and origins of the fish, as well as cultural aspects surrounding the fish
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Gather more information about the jellyfish, as the article needs to be built upon more
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * Underdeveloped

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: