User:Cece44444/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Colossal squid

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it is an organism that we learned about in my Deep Sea Biology class that interested me and my group. It is important to evaluate pages for deep sea organisms because scientists are still learning a lot about the deep sea and making new connections all of the time. Additionally, it is important to keep science accessible for the public to encourage ocean conservation and encourage research interests in the deep sea. My preliminary impression of this article is that there are substantial categories describing key aspects of the squid, but not a lot of info in most of these sections. The behavior subsections and distribution section are pretty sparse. There is substantial info regarding specimen collections. There are also a significant number of citations and other useful 'further links'.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section
The introductory sentence is very concise only stating the common name, scientific name, and family name of the colossal squid. In the introductory paragraph, there are 1-2 interesting sentences summarizing key facts for each of the sections. The lead does not include un-cited information. It is my opinion that the precise size data could possibly be moved down to a category such as morphology to make the introductory paragraph easier to read, but it also makes sense in the introductory paragraph to prove that the colossal squid's large size.

Content
The article's content is very relevant to the topic, but many of the behavior sections could benefit from more details. The content appears up-to-date in terms of deep sea research, as limited data means that articles from many years ago are likely still relevant. Also, the deep sea organism morphology is less likely to significantly change over a decade than say, technological developments in medicine, so the 'cut-off' period for up to date content contains a much wider range. The article does not address any equity gaps on Wikipedia from a human social/societal standpoint, but is important for deep sea organism representation and research. A new category that could potentially be added is any strong research themes pertaining to the colossal squid ex: deep sea optics. Information could be added to the morphology section regarding the squid's hooks and other organisms with hooks like these.

Tone and Balance
The article has a neutral tone and does not appear to have any competing or commercial claims. Because so little is known about the colossal squid, some studies are repeated, but relevant research is considered thoroughly. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way and is written with appropriate scientific language that is well defined for the average audience. The article is careful to mention several times that the data and information is limited due to the lack of research, which acknowledges that the studies included may not be contested because there is no other data out there.

Sources and References
This article has a good number of sources listed, but very few are from 2020 and more recent. Not every fact is backed up by a reliable source, for example the last fact under the subheading "Largest Known Specimen" listing the size of the specimen does not have an associated source. External links and citation links work as expected. There are sections in the article that can definitely be improved upon using peer-reviewed sources. For example, the Vision section is lacking citations in the first line and does not describe research concerning deep sea optics. Some sources appear to be from press origins, so it would be worth considering finding more peer-reviewed articles to back up the information cited to these sources.

Organization and Writing Quality
The content is well organized in a sound scientific manner, with categories and subheadings accurately relating to major concerns/interests for scientists studying this organism. It is concise and easy to read, but research is limited so some facts are very general. Grammar and spelling are generally high quality in this article. Facts are very concise, and the implications of some characteristics could be expanded upon (with proper sources).

Images and Media
The article does include images that enhance understanding on general appearance, external body plan, and comparative size. It would be beneficial to include more images explaining distribution and habitat, behavior cycles, and specific anatomy if possible. The captions of these images could be improved. The images could be laid out in a more visually appealing way, especially if a full-color photograph of the organism can be found.

Talk Page Discussion
This article has a decently large talk page, but it appears activity was very high around 2006. Some edits have been made in 2019 and 2022, but they appear to largely be fixing links or fixing disputed facts. It would be beneficial to add more recent information in if such sources exist. There was previous discussion of too many photos being included, so adding to the images and media may not be favored by previous users. There is not a lot of discussion regarding adding to behaviors sections, except for a defense fact added in 2015 and a beak discussion. The behavior and distribution sections appear to be good areas to start a discussion. The article rating is level 5: vital in the Biology section per the Wikipedia banner at the top of the talk page which encourages improvement on the article information. It is listed as Class C. The Colossal Squid is part of the WikiProject Cephalopods. The specimen sections are certainly different than our class discussions, as we have spent more time on behavior, distribution, and life strategies (eg: bioluminescence) rather than specimen preservations.

Overall Impressions
The article's overall status is in need of some more recent improvements and also a general increase in information, especially regarding behavior and morphology. This also entails explaining some potential implications and connections of the species specific information back to the general family/class, and contributing to the WikiProject Cephalopods knowledge base. The article has great organization and includes some good sources and relevant links. However, it needs to include more research-based conclusions from validated sources. The article is developed in a bare outline sense, with very concise summaries of generalized facts.