User:C.bellavance20/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Sea spider

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was looking for invertebrates that I found interesting, and sea spider was at the bottom of the arthropods and crustacean pages.

Evaluate the article
In terms of content, every aspect of the article was relative to the overarching topic. There were a few things that could have been more specific. For example, under the "Reproduction and development" section of the article, the author wrote, "All pycnogonid species have separate sexes, except for one species that is hermaphroditic" yet never named the outlier species mentioned. For the most part, however, the facts used are represented fairly and equitably. The "Group Taxonomy" section is very detailed and informational, as is the "Classification" section. Other sections could most likely be expanded upon, such as the "Fossil Record" and "Distribution and Ecology" sections, because they are accurate and informational, but not as detailed as other sections. While the topic of Sea Spiders is not very controversial, it is still important to note that the article was unbiased and honest when mentioning certain topics, such as a lack of knowledge in the fossil record and the way the species is classified. I don't recognize any inconsistencies in viewpoints, because most of the article is factual, and less arguable. However, it may help to add perspectives on how they affect their surroundings, how they are affected by climate change, or human interaction with the species. That would be a section that could be biased potentially because it would be more geared towards humanity and political concerns, however there is no bias or underrepresentation in what's currently in the article. References 6, 7, and 25 were randomly checked, and while the first two worked, the last reference did not have the full text available to check on my end. Both sources checked were academic and seemingly unbiased websites. There were 20+ sources from all different backgrounds, websites, and authors, which is commendable in terms of diversity of sources. In terms of images, none seem to be violating any copyright laws. Most comments on the talk page are about the scientific names and classifications of Sea Spiders, as well as some citation errors. Most of them were solved by the author, and if not they are disputed in a replied comment by the author. The rating of the article is C-Class and High Importance on the wikipedia scales. Overall, this is a well written and credible article, and there are definitely places in the article in terms of content and context that could be elaborated on a bit more.