User:Cochrajg/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mirocaris

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because our group is updating it for our project topic/

Evaluate the article

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * No because the article is so short, there is nothing is irrelevant. More so, a lot is missing from the article
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * The article is missing a lot of information. The article should include more information about reproduction, how the species evade predators and attract prey. In addition, there could be more information about the chemoreceptive abilities.
 * Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?
 * For the little information that is in the page, there is slightly more information for the mirocaris fortunata species versus mirocaris indica species
 * What else could be improved?
 * There should also be more visuals to outline the organism’s structure and organs that give them certain adaptations
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is neutral. Every piece of information is quantitative and factual.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Since it is a scientific topic that has little to no information, there are no direct viewpoints.
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The first two citations do not work when you click the links. The third link works, and the information matches what the page states.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The one source that was accessible was appropriate and reliable. It came from the Proceedings of the Biology Society of Washington. However, it was from 1995 which is slightly out of date.
 * Do the sources come from a diverse array of authors and publications?
 * This is non-applicable because only one of the sources worked, so there is nothing to compare it to.

Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There are no conversations that have been going on about this topic
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as start-class and low-importance. However, it is part of a WikiProjects called “Arthropods”
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The page is far more focused on how the species is related to larger families of organisms. However, in class we typically discuss the species with a larger focus on adaptations and capabilities that relate to the deep sea.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback with four tildes — ~.

''“Hi! What kinds of biological adaptations do the Mirocaris have that allow it to exist in the deep sea? Do they utilize bioluminescence?”''