User:CirillaJinxOdin/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Psychrolutidae

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I really enjoy blobfish, or the family Psychrolutidae. They are weird and funny looking. They are so interesting because many can be found thousands of meters deep in the oceans and they can live past 100 years old! They are very strange and have always caught my interest.

Evaluate the article
The lead of this article is well thought out. Unfortunately I find it to be a bit overly detailed. It only introduces the topic in the first two sentences, and trails on into facts. I think it should be split into two paragraphs and have more of an introductory paragraph.

The content on the other hand is quite good. It is definitely relevant to the topic on hand. Even though there is not much material, the material chosen for this article works well, although I do think there are many things missing.

The tone and balance of the article is neutral. I found no sign of bias within the article.

For the references, there seems to be many great cites, unfortunately a few of the links do not work and are out of date. Everything in the article seems to be cited, but again, the links do not work. None of the references look to be from a magazine or random article which is good! There is a part at the end of the article where it says "it is believed" but doesn't explain who believes this.

The organization of this article is quite nice, besides the first paragraph, which could be split. It does not have the best flow, but it's there. It sounds professional and I don't happen to see any other spelling or grammatical mistakes.

This article seems to only have one picture which is quite disappointing. The one picture that is there seems to be of good quality and cited properly. Psychrolutidae are very interesting and weird looking, and there could be many pictures showing just how interesting they are. I feel as though they should add more, and some related to the different topics of the paragraphs.

The talk page only has one thing, correcting a depth rage for these fish. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot going on with this article's talk page. This article is rated as a start article on the quality scale and of mid-importance on the importance scale. It is also part of wikiproject fishes, which also comes from the wikiproject tree of life.

I find this article to be a good starting place, but it definitely needs more material and a few fixes. I find the strength of the article to be the information given, even though there should be a few changes to the way its presented. I believe this article could be improved by adding more images, fixing the first paragraph, and making sure all sources are up to date and the links to these resources work. This article seems to be well underdeveloped.