User:Gummycrown/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Oarfish

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
My groups topic is Oarfish, the page looks good, but there remains some room for improvement. I am hoping to add information on life cycle, behavior in the wild, and separation from lore. It has a lot of good information and references some of the papers I am familiar with, but I am hoping to add more book references, as I have found a few.

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.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes! It covers the main questions people would have about Oarfish.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Not really, this could be added.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Yes, some information about game fish.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes!
 * Is the content up-to-date? Sort of, most is from early 2000s, but some references have been added from 2021.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Some missing content I discussed above. More detail overall could be helpful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, it is pretty neutral topic
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? NA
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It seems like it!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, there are many many more published papers that could be included.
 * Are the sources current? See above.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Likely no, but more investigation is needed here.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Most sources are to random websites or new articles. Much is to be desired here, especially peer reviewed papers. They exist, so they just must be added.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes! good variety
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes, simple but clear
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? From what I can tell.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not really

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Some interesting debate! Mostly on spelling and lore
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated B, it is a part of Wiki fishes!
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We haven't discussed this at all so yes.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Good, but could use some easy improvement
 * What are the article's strengths? Good diversity of information
 * How can the article be improved? See above.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It could use some more perf reviewed papers, maybe check on some of the news articles.