User:CFiss

 Article Evaluation  - Glaucus atlanticus


 * All information is relevent. The only thing that "distracted" me was that the flow of the writing was off in some places and so it was hard to follow without re-reading.
 * There are 2 sources cited that are pretty old, one being published in1989 and the other in 1998. The earliest "retrieved" information dates back to 2007. I feel like there could have been more added about the lifecycle (such as stages and whatnot).
 * The article seems to be neutral, as there is no evidence of opinionated statements.
 * No. All veiwpoints seem to be presented.
 * A lot of the in text links go to other wikipedia pages for information. There is also a dead link that doesn't work towards the end of the page.
 * Using the links from the reference section, I found that there is a mix of sources ranging from wikipedia, to websites, to scholarly text, and to news reports, leading me to believe that not all of the sources are as notable as they should be.
 * Most people in the talk section are looking for clarification on different aspects of the article or suggesting revisions based on fact-checks and better clarity.
 * This article is part of WikiProject Gastropods. Its is ranked as C-Class, High-Importance.
 * We haven't discussed this particular organism in class.

 Article Selection 

Jorunna parva

Thecacera pacifica

Phidiana hiltoni

These three are all good choices. - Josh