User:Jeremiahbravo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Velvet Belly Lanternshark

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article in specific because it pertains to a species of deep sea shark which my group is potentially interested in. Various members of my colleagues had chosen different species of lanternshark and I chose specifically velvet belly lanternshark, and naturally I wanted to view the current information present within the existing wikipedia page in order to find potential weak points in its structure, tone, etc, as well ways to potentially improve it in the future. This article in specific also is very detailed as it provides description on taxonomy, distribution and habitat, physiological characteristics, biology, and ecology, which is a large amount of information that makes it more likely to have errors and biases and as such I felt like it was a good and relevant article evaluate.

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.)

From inspection of the article, I was fairly impressed with it overall as it was very thorough. With the leading section in specific I found very little to no critiques as it delivers the information a very concise manner, and introduces all the topics later explained within their own sections without fully going into an expansive amount of detail which is ideal for a leading section. Evaluating the content of the article overall, there is little to devalue as there is very relevant information on evolutionary relationships, distribution, feeding patterns, and even addresses anthropogenic interactions with the species itself, which is something I feel is often overlooked in various articles that I have seen. The citations used within this article are relatively up to date with most of the sources being from reputable sources from the last ten years, however I would advise an updated citation to be used for explaining the diet of this species because of the fact that the source was from a study conducted in 1983 and as species become more extinct it is possible that their diet has changed to reflect this change. In general I would advise an updating on all the sources at the very least retrieved earlier than 2010 to ensure up to date data. I have to commend the article on the neutrality and tone as I do not feel like there is any viewpoint that is more represented more than the other, although I do find it difficult to obtain such a tone that would elicit some sort of bias int his type of article providing information on a specific species. If I were to find a sense of bias I would expect it in the section labeled "human interactions" as it would present an opportunity to for lack of a better word "bash" on our anthropogenic impact; however, I found no issue whatsoever and applaud the author for maintaining neutrality. The use of images is well done as well, as the author chose to keep it simple with keeping it limited to pictures of a geographic map of where they can be found and the species itself, overall very useful visuals that each have good descriptions and are properly credited. It seems this article had a copyright issue in the past however, as there had to be an edit that removed certain phrases that are not licensed for Wikipedia, but past this issue that had been resolved, no other issues were brought up. This article in specific is also given a rating of GA-class, meaning it is a "good article" that has been reviewed by one or more impartial reviewers and was able to meet other necessary criteria. Overall, the article is well-developed in my opinion.