User:Gilbertparra50/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Salvelinus willughbii - Wikipedia)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Because it is lacking much detail and needs to be expanded upon.)

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The first sentence gives a good overall view of what the Windermere char is. However, not much else is expanded upon besides who named the species. It's an interesting piece of information as these two people seem like important historical figures with lots of information on their respective wikipedia pages. While these few sentences are good and should most likely be kept, the article is in desperate need of expansion.

While the content on the page is relevant and mostly up to date, more information can be found on the species than what is provided. There are no equity gaps because it's a fish, and fish do not find ways to bring negative thoughts into their daily lives like we do.

The article is neutral and there are no strong opinions or controversial topics. There seems to be no bias or any underrepresented group dying to add to the page. No persuasion is used to convince the reader of any opinion.

Sources seem to be legitimate upon examination but outdated. One of the sources says its from 1965. The authors are not diverse but that does not matter since this is science. I have found other articles on the internet concerning this species and would recommend using those to add to the page. The links work except for the ISBN of the book by Tim Birkhead which is understandable as im sure its something that needs to be paid for to view.

The few lines of text are written professionally and is easy to understand. No grammatical errors seem to be present. I cannot give it a score for organization as there is only one section and no other sections or information is present.

There are very few images of this particular species of char. The image on the page is in fact a public image and while its a illustration it does a decent job at providing a overview of how this fish looks.

The talk page says that the article is a part of the stub class and is of low importance. It is a part of WikiProjects Fishes.

Overall the article is stubby and barren. The lead part is not too bad and is intriguing but there is not any other information. The article can be improved by adding information to it from any other research done on this species. The article is severely underdeveloped.