User:Chrysosli/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Dumb gulper shark

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
My initial reason for picking this article is because I like sharks and I thought that the name dumb gulper shark was funny. But once I started reading the Wikipedia for them, it got me more interested in them. Since there wasn't a lot of information about them and that they seen to be on the brick of extinction.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead Section
 * 2) The introductory sentence does clearly describe what the article is about. In this case it’s about the dumb gulper shark.
 * 3) The introductory paragraph doesn’t have a full brief description of the main sections that are included. The only sections that are mentioned are their habitat, population, and conservation, and partly characteristics. It is missing behavior.
 * 4) It does have information that isn’t included in the rest of the article. That is characteristics of the dumb gulper sharks. They mention  what family of sharks that they come from and the other names they are known for. But does not break down the information in the article.
 * 5) I would say that the lead is concise since it gets start to the point that you are reading an article about dumb gulper sharks and all that is known anout them.
 * 6) Content
 * 7) Yes, the article content is relevant to the topic. Since it does go through the characteristics, habitat, behavior, population, and conservation of these sharks.
 * 8) There was one up-to-date article (it was the “Harrisson’s Dogfish”) but the rest of their information seems to be from 2006 - 2019. And one article link is broken. But from my own research I could find a bunch of articles that range from 2019 - 2022, so I would say no.
 * 9) Yes there is some content to be missing. While reading through the article some of the information that was given did not match the category they were in.
 * 10) Characteristics were find where they described the anatomy of the dumb gulper shark, the difference in gender, and the difference to other sharks in the same gulper family. I think either having a section called history or adding the information about how they got their different names (dumb shark, Harrison’s deep-sea dogfish, or Harrison’s dogfish) or even how or why it’s called a “dumb gulper shark.”
 * 11) Habitat was very brief and didn’t have much information besides that they are found in Australia and New Zealand. I definitely feel like more information could be placed there. They could have if they have hibernation habits or if they change locations for food supply.
 * 12) Behavior section was filled with information about what they eat and how many pups they produced. This feels like it doesn’t belong here at all especially since the two topics have nothing to do with each other. What they eat can fit with behavior and ecology of dumb gulper sharks, but their birthing rate could be in the “Population” section. I also feel like they can add more information here as well. Are they vicious? Are they friendly to humans? How many shark attacks are caused by them? Information that would give more insight about them as a species.
 * 13) Population did have some more information in this section. They go into detail about the decreasing numbers in the population and why it is dropping. They also mention the birth rates here, this is where I think the birth rate information in “Behavior” should be.
 * 14) Conservation has some information about the steps that are being taken to make sure the dumb gulper sharks don’t completely go extinct.
 * 15) I don’t believe it has Wikipedia Equity Gaps.
 * 16) Tone and Balance
 * 17) From reading the article it seems to be completely neutral. Even when they mention the sharks being targeted for trawling or drop lining, they don’t put their opinion on whether this is a moral or immoral thing. And they mention the conservation act as a connection to the ‘Population” section and how it is acting as a counter to the overfishing.
 * 18) Sources and References
 * 19) As I mentioned in the previous section “Content”, there are some issues with the articles that they picked for this project.
 * 20) Some of the articles and publication dates back from 2006 - 2019. Their earliest date is 2020. When I tried to look up reliable articles for this topic I was able to collect 5 or so articles that date from 2019 - 2022.
 * 21) From what I could find the sources are not from historically marginalized individuals.
 * 22) Most of the links work, there was one that didn’t (."Sharks of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Shark Species Known to Date, Vol. 4: Part 1: Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes") and two other articles that didn’t have links connected to them ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259293920_Description_of_two_new_species_of_gulper_sharks_genus_Centrophorus_Chondrichthyes_Squaliformes_Centrophoridae_from_Australia and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248528561_Catch_analysis_and_productivity_of_the_deepwater_dogfish_resource_in_southern_Australia )
 * 23) Organization and Writing Quality
 * 24) The article is somewhat easy to read. But I think that’s mainly because there are a lot of words (scientific) that I didn’t understand. So I would consider that a reader error.
 * 25) The only grammatical error that I found, and I don’t know if I can disprove it being accurate, is in “Characteristics.”
 * 26) “The dumb gulper shark may grow to be 43 in (110 cm) long and has a long, robust head, a long, flattened snout, a large y mouth, and large, green eyes, which help it see at 820 to 1260 ft (250 to 385 m) under water.”
 * 27) This section here feels like a run-on sentence. And the highlighted part is where I believe there could be a typo error.
 * 28) There was a section (“Behavior”) where they combined two completely different pieces of information that don’t have a correlation to each other.
 * 29) Images and Media
 * 30) They only provide two images throughout the whole article. One is the dumb gulper shark and the other is a map to show where they are located. I think if they proved more images about the anatomy of the dumb gulper shark or the different subspecies and how they differ might help this article look more visually appealing.
 * 31) There isn’t much description in the caption for both images.
 * 32) Yes, I believe that the images are following Wikipedia’s copyright laws.
 * 33) No, since there are no actual images in the article, it doesn’t have anything to help make it less text heavy and have a break for the eyes.
 * 34) Talk Page Discussion
 * 35) There are no conversations happening in the Talk page.
 * 36) This article is labeled a C-Class on the project's quality scale and a Low-important from the importance scale.
 * 37) How it’s different is that there is no communication from the editor of this article. Whether they made some changes or have a question. There is one the grade level of the article here.
 * 38) Overall Impressions
 * 39) I feel like it makes sense that this article is at a C-Class level. The article does have some good qualities. With the information that they did provide. They did use somewhat reliable information for the topic and were able to give some good general information.
 * 40) But with that the flaws of this article is that the organization of the information could be a little better plus with some more information in them. It could also use some images to help the readers understand what they are talking about. An example would be for the anatomy and the different subspecies. That will help readers see the differences and similarities with these sharks and if they don’t know shark anatomy it gives them a reference.

Another then that I think this article was very interesting and even though it didn’t have that much information or go to indepth I certain did learn alot about dumb gulper sharks.