User:Blainethesquirrel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Fish Physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article, because a research project I did this past summer was on fish physiology. It is a topic I am interested in and have a bit of background in. It is also within my discipline in biology.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: This section is clear about what fish physiology is. It is direct and brief. At the end of the paragraph it also details what is needed yet to fully understand fish physiology (what research is needed).

Content: The content is relevant to the topic. It is mostly up-to-date. The most recent article I saw that was cited was from 2014. I do not think there is any content missing. If there is it would be from newer scientific articles. The article is about fish, so I think it would be out of place include equity gaps of historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance: The article is neutral. There are no claims that seem biased or overrepresented. The circulation section seems underrepresented. It is very small section compared to the other sections. There is no persuasion.

Sources and References: The article is backed up by plenty of other sources. I do think the sources reflect a good spread of what is available on the topic, but I think some more recent research could be added. From the sources I looked at, there were a variety of authors. The links worked and the ones I checked were from peer-reviewed journals.

Organization and writing quality: The article is easy read. It is clear and concise. I didn't see any grammatically errors. The article is very well organized. There are many headers and sub-headers.

Images and Media: The images included are very helpful, interesting and well captioned. The images are laid out in a way that corresponds to the topic area they are referring to.

Talk Page Discussion: The discussion on the talk page refer to links that are either to controversial studies or dead links that were fixed. The article is rated as a C and high importance. It is part of the Wiki tree of life project. How Wikipedia talks about the article is similar to how we've discussed it in class.

Overall Impressions: The articles overall status is a C. The articles strengths are how clear and concisely it is written. The article needs some work on current, peer reviewed sources. I think the article is well developed, but some details need to be fixed and some other aspects of the article need to be updated.