User:ExploringTheDeep/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
Grimpoteuthis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate because it is the page covering a genus of deep-sea octopi. My group is covering deep-sea octopuses for our semester project, so this makes this page rather relevant for this work. This article matters because it is a look into a deep sea genus as well as specific species which are generally underrepresented among animal taxa.

My preliminary impression of this article is that it is admittedly more detailed than I expected, but also is much shorter than many articles I have seen that look at terrestrial or shallow water species. The article seems to cover a good breadth of information, but is lacking in in-depth details.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:

The lead includes an intro sentence that appropriately and concisely describes the topic of the genus Grimpoteuthis. It provides enough information to contextualize the genus and links to appropriate separate articles for additional information. Following the first sentence, the lead could be greatly improved. It does not include a description of the article's major sections and includes information that is not again addressed in the article (life span, also lacks a citation). It is "concise," but not appropriately. It is short and quickly covers the genus, but is less of an intro to the article and more of a quick list of random facts.

Content:

All of the content and sections in the article appear to be relevant to the topic (Species and taxonomy; Range and habitat; Threats; Movement, characteristics, and food supply; Breeding). All of this information is useful in understanding the genus and provides explanations of key features of the taxa. There doesn't appear to be one section that is more fleshed-out than the others. The content also seems to be up to date, with many of the sources coming from the 2000s. Some content appears to be missing regarding the genus, but it is unclear if this is because of missing research or insufficient exploration of the topic by the writers of the article. For many of the sections, topics and details could be expanded on if the information is available to clarify facts and expand on the key aspects of this genus.

The article doesn't address any historically marginalized populations, but this is likely due to its focus on an animal genus. When doing this kind of research it is important to represent female, indigenous, and other POC researchers and authors. More in-depth review of resources would need to be done to assess this.

Tone and Balance:

This article appears to be written from a neutral point of view. There is no discernible opinion imbued into the factual information. I don't notice any particular bias or attempts at persuasion. There does not appear to be much controversy regarding this topic.

Sources and References:

There are many citations throughout the article and they appropriately cite important information and facts. Many of these sources and references are from reliable, strong sources (many journal articles and primary research). The sources are quite thorough, and when you search for the genus on a source such as Google Scholar, many of the top results are cited in this article. This includes research from as recent as 2022. Thus, the article definitely reflects the available literature on Grimpoteuthis. While some authors are repeated, there are multiple authors represented, and the repeats are likely due to specific people being experts in this field. There are some websites cited, but these are trumped by peer-reviewed articles. Usefully, many of the links work and direct me to the sources.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The article is well-written, but it is choppy at times. While this can help make the article concise, it can also make it difficult to read and present the information in a less-than-ideal manner. In particular, many of the sections that cover the more detailed science about the genus seem like "Fact. Fact. Information. Fact. Fact" with low expansion on important genus details. Based on the preliminary research I have done regarding the genus, many articles and research expand much more greatly on the important specifics of Grimpoteuthis, so it would be useful to include this information rather than only parred down descriptions.

While reading I did not note any grammatical or spelling errors. What I did notice was some strange ordering on the articles sections. While I believe the breakdown of sections is good and chosen wisely, the order appears strange and some information feels as if it could be in a different section. For example, the "Threats" section is confusingly named and addresses multiple topics: threats from humans, predators, and its unknown evasion tactics. Firstly, this section could use with significant expansion and further exploration/explanation, but it also seems out of place after the "Range and habitat" section. I believe it would be more appropriate before the "Breeding" section towards the end.

Images and Media:

The article includes two images, one primary image and another of a Grimpoteuthis sp. in motion. Both images are useful for better understanding this genus. The first image is credited to NOAA, however the second image does not appear to be credited to anyone. I believe this does not adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. It is unclear where this image was taken from.

The images are laid out in a visually appealing manner, but the second image could possibly be moved to the "Movement, characteristics, and food supply" section. If not moved, other images could be found and added to better this article.

Talk Page Discussion:

There is some discussion in this article's talk page, but not much. Multiple of these discussions are in relation to awkward wording, poorly written sentences, or confusing sentences. One part of the talk page just seems to list somebody's notes about Grimpotuehtis, but does not cite where this information came from. One person noted a plagiarism issue, however they rectified this themselves which is good.

This article is rated as C-class. It is part of the WikiProject Cephalopods which is currently considered inactive. As well, it is noted that this article was a part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Overall Impressions:

Overall I think this article is okay, it covers some important information and is clearly well researched and up-to-date. It does a good job of selecting what sections are important to cover regarding the genus. However, it could be improved by bettering the writing quality and expanding on some important research and facts about Grimpoteuthis. The formatting of the article could also be improved, and some potential image copyright issues addressed. Overall, the article seems well-developed enough based on what information is available, but there is definitely room for improvement. In particular, some new information has come out in 2023 that could be added to the article to improve the information presented.