User:GirlfromOregon11/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Reef aquarium

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose this article because in terms of environmental conservation, I have a specific interest in marine life and care of the ocean. I often visit aquariums with family and friends to learn more about marine life to understand how connected marine life is and why ocean conservation is important to encourage a healthy Earth. As much as I disapprove of the capture and holding of animals of every kind, I believe the more information we have for the public will encourage a positive reaction in the discussion of environmental conservation in general. The article itself is long enough that it seems to have a good amount of information without it being overwhelming. I noticed some figures to help explain the points highlighted in each subheading which it great for exchanging information. The article, however, is missing citations about specific facts which was pointed out by wikipedia itself. Other than that, there are no citations when there are many references, so I am a bit confused about the formatting.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead section: Is concise and points out further topics that will be discussed in more detail. The first sentence describes reef aquariums and its importance for understanding marine ecosystems. I do think it could be a bit longer, as I had to reread the paragraph a couple times to organize it better in my head.
 * 2) Content: The content describes the key components to reef aquariums, I believe for people who want to host their own domestic kind. The content goes into detail without going off on tangents which is helpful to stay focused on the topic. The article feels more like instruction rather than informational, but I think because of the topic those can be interchangeable.
 * 3) Tone and Balance: The tone of the article is neutral, as it follows a more instructional and informational flow of thought. The author does well to identify the many moving parts to reef aquariums, also acknowledging the different sizes and how those components change with the size of the reef. This is helpful as they cover all the potential questions viewers may have about reef aquariums.
 * 4) Sources and References: I noticed no citations from the article. They have many references, but do not actually refer to them within the article. This was flagged by wikipedia at the top as it suggests editing to be done. The sources referenced vary from websites to scientific journals. There are more websites, with them only referring to one scientific article. When I clicked on the referred articles, almost none of the pages were able to come up which adds to the unreliability of the writer. There are links throughout the article to related topics, such as the nitrogen cycle, which is appropriate to not add unnecessary information to the article.
 * 5) Organization and Writing Quality: The article is organized well, and is easy to follow along with. The writing itself is clear and everything is explained.
 * 6) Images and Media: The images help explain what is being discussed throughout the paragraphs. They are captioned with more information on how they are relevant and further explanation of things such as pumps and filtration systems. Under the pictures used is referred to as "Own Work", which I do not think is acceptable, and others recognize proper copyright guidelines.
 * 7) Talk Page Discussion: The talk page discussed the possibility of merging this page with another, suggesting the two share similar information. They also highlight some corrections needed to be made to certain facts or statements. The article is part of a WikiProject within the scope of Aquarium Fish and was given a C Class on the quality scale and of High Importance on the importance scale.
 * 8) Overall Impressions: I think this article could use more work to enhance the quality of the work and the reliability of the author. I think the strengths rely on the organization of the article, as the weaknesses are from the lack of reliable sources and factual information. There is more work to be done to make the article more complete