User:ERCunningham/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Diseases and parasites in salmon

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am very interested in salmon and the effects of fish farms on wild salmon population which is what this article relates to. It also falls in marine microbiology. First impression was that this seems short for such a in depth topic.

Evaluate the article
Lead section: Only includes one lead sentence, which is a good and concise introduction but has no descriptions of the pages sections.

Content: Content is relevant but references older information and several sections are much shorter than then they should be in terms of research and information that is available on the subject (ie Sea lice). Also at times seems to under cut the overall threat to wild salmon and the role farmed salmon play in this but only citing 1 paper linking the two when there are far more available. Could also expand on the role of antibiotics.

Tone and Balance: The article appears to be fairy neutral and does seem to draw data directly from articles when present and does include a line referencing contradicting points. Could include more sources that are up to date for either side so as to give a better picture today but doesn't seem to be highly biased.

Sources and references: Sources are largely out of date, being 2010 or before on the large part. However, majority of sources are proper primary literature with working links. Information appears to be correlated with articles conclusions.

Organization and writing quality: Yes, the writing of the article is clear and easy to follow. Sections and titles are fitting if a bit short.

Images and media: Article includes a few relevant, captioned photos that relate to the accompanying section. Images are interesting and link to the material well.

Talk page discussion: Not much appears to be going on in the talk section besides an addition of links. Does not appear to be many writers or possibly only one. It is a part of 3 wiki projects which all rate it start class and low importance.

Overall impressions: The page seems to hit on the main bits but rarely dives in depth and seems to simplify some diseases and causes, and overall seems to be quite out of date and has only a few sources. Could certainly use an update and expansion. Overall would say it is underdeveloped.