User:IanKreciglowa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Osmoregulation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am evaluating this article because it is a central topic for the things that I am learning about in my class. From a first glance the article seems well written. The article included a lot of different areas in a short article, essentially causing the effect of trying to add too much in too little which led to gaps in detail.

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 lead section is relatively well written with a good outline. It follows the rough parameters of what a lead section should include, however it is a worded in a way that may confuse people, especially younger students who are just learning about the topic. The authors vernacular is quite advanced. In the future, I would try and make the lead section easier to follow. The content in the article is interesting, however the beginning content goes into much more detail than the content at the end of the article. Additionally I think the content is out of place and would be better suited in an entirely different article, or it can fit in if the author massaged the article differently to make the pieces fir together better. The information that is presented is very useful and knowledgeable, but with a bit more editing and changes I think the flow of the article would be better. The nature of this article being more of an informative type makes it difficult to have a biased opinion on the topic. Throughout the article the author does a good job staying neutral, only relying on the facts. That being said I do believe that there are some areas in the article that are underrepresented, especially towards the end of the article. This article needs more citations, for the amount of areas this article covered it is lacking in the amount of citations and references it used. Most of the references are to-date however there are two references that should be swapped for a more reliable source. The links that are in the article work well and are useful to the reader. The sources that the author used aren't exactly bad per say, but if the author used more sources I think they would've found better sources. The article is relatively well written with no grammatical errors, however it is a strenuous read at certain times throughout the article. Additionally, the setup isn't great, I think the article is trying to cover too many bases at once which leads to a choppy read that jumps around a bit too much although all the topics are still under the same realm of study. The article does have pictures that are accurately labeled and easy to follow, the one thing I would say about the images is that I would've liked to see more of them. The author covers multiple areas but only includes a few pictures. There are only two comments on the talk page for this article and I agree with both of them. The article is listed as a level 5 vital article in Biology, General. It has been rated as a start class by WikiProject Vital Articles. In general the article has a lot of good details and the actual information presented is useful and accurate with regards to the topic. My main issues with the article is the layout and how the information is presented. If the format and vernacular was a bit different, the article would flow in a better way making it easier to read.