User:JesseChadder/Evaluate an Article

Staghorn coral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staghorn_coral

The study of corals encompasses many aspects of science; including, biology, chemistry, physics and geology. Staghorn corals, like other stony corals, are also responsible for building and maintaining some of the world's most diverse and important ecosystems, which are not only relied on by billions of humans for survival, but also thousands of unique marine species found nowhere else on the planet. Despite this, all across the globe, staghorn corals are dying off which has massively negative consequences on the ecosystem in which they live, resulting in the collapse of many coral reef systems around the world. Therefore, it is now more important than ever to not only learn about these spectacular habitat builders, and appreciate their beauty and importance, but also learn how to help save them, before it's too late.

Preliminary view of the article was that it was very brief, without much information on staghorn coral anatomy (symbiosis with zooxanthellae, carbonate skeleton, etc.), the effects of human activity on their survival (habitat degradation, climate change, sedimentation, overfishing, etc.), the role they play in the environment (protection for small fish, nitrogen cycle), or their relevance in captivity (mariculture for the aquarium hobby, aquaculture in captivity, etc.).

Evaluate the article
This article provides a good overview of staghorn corals to readers who may not be familiar with the topic, however, is lacking a lot of detail and information. Here is what I would change, starting with the citations; - There are not nearly enough sources for what is written. The first citation doesn't appear until the last subsection, and only five are provided throughout the entire article. - Citation link #5 provided for the endangered species act is broken. The information itself is also out of date, a new report for staghorn coral was released in 2012: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/12/07/2012-29350/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-proposed-listing-determinations-for-82-reef-building - As previously mentioned, they are numerous citations missing, including for the overview paragraph at the beginning of the article, and the subsections on Distribution and Reproduction. - Here is a couple articles on sexual reproduction that could be included to bolster the Reproduction subsection of the article, and highlight the corals different reproduction strategies: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-31305-4_16 and https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-0114-4_6 - Here is a good article to provide as a source for the asexual reproductive methods of stony corals: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24815005. - Need to find a good source for the Distribution subsection since currently it is missing one, maybe this could work although it is limited to one area in Florida: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6926&context=etd - The rest of the citations that are used in this article seem to be of good quality from trusted sources and with working links.

Structure and coverage of the article; - Not enough subsections resulting in lots of information missing - I would add a subsection on Habitat and discuss in more detail where in the water column staghorn corals are found (like their depth), the conditions of those depths (water flow, temperature, amount of light, etc.). I would eliminate the subsection on Distribution and incorporate it into the new subsection on Habitat. - The Conservation subsection is too brief and does not discuss in enough detail the main threats to these corals. For example, saying that coral loss is due to pollution, does not give enough specificity on the relationship between coral loss and pollution. What pollution? where does it come from? how does it affect growth or photosynthesis? are some forms more destructive than others? what region is the problem the biggest? This can also be applied to predation, disease and bleaching. - I don't understand why the sub heading, "threats and concerns" are under the Conservation subsection, this should be its own subsection broken into multiple parts. For example, a subsection named "Threats" with sub headings of each of the biggest threats to staghorn corals, like "climate change", "pollution", "overfishing", "habitat degradation", etc. - I would also add information about past, current, and future strategies for helping save staghorn corals, and also maybe include successful strategies from other parts of the world for other species of coral to give readers some perspective. - Adding a very brief subsection on Anatomy, to give readers some context could be helpful, or at the very least a link to an already existing article on stony coral anatomy for further reading. - The largest part of the article is on "Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing history" which includes the complete history of the staghorn corals conservation status, which is important, but could be simplified to make the information more easily digestible. A graphic could be made including a timeline with brief descriptions for each year leading up to the most recent one. - In the overview paragraph at the beginning of the article there is no mention of threats to the coral or conservation strategies. Including a couple sentences on this would be a more accurate reflection of what the article discusses. - I would also reshuffle the overview paragraph to order information to go from more general to specific. For example, first discuss what a coral is, then get into this specific species (cervicornis), and then briefly discuss more specific information about its anatomy, habitat, reproduction, threats and finally conservation strategies. Thus by the end of the lead, the reader knows what to expect from the article.

Clarity and neutrality; - I think overall the article is written from a relatively un-biased perspective, although not perfect. There are no personal opinions or "I" statements, however, from what is included in the article it could be argued that the writer's interest is more focused on the conservation side of things, judging by the detail and length in that section as opposed to the others. - I think the biggest problem with neutrality when it comes to this article is the missing citations. Since large parts of the article are without outside sources, it raises some questions about where the information came from, and how much control over the wording the writer had. In other words, the writer could be misinterpreting a source or completely misrepresenting it and a reader would never know since where the writer got the information from is not listed. - As for the clarity of the article, I think it's pretty good. There are some areas where the language is vague and lacks specificity, like when discussing the reproductive strategies; more information could and should be added to this area, as well as examples. Most probably this lack of clarity in some places could be attributed to the lack of sources. - The writing itself is pretty good, although there are some weirdly worded sentences that don't flow as well as they could and should be simplified to increase clarity. For example, "This coral occurs in the western Gulf of Mexico, but is absent from U.S. waters in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as Bermuda and the west coast of South America. The northern limit is on the east coast of Florida, around Jupiter, Florida." could be combined into one shorter sentence instead of the two it currently is separated into - The overview paragraph should be rewritten, as previously discussed, to lay out information from more general to more specific would provide more clarity to the reader. - Moreover, the last sentence of the overview paragraph does not really relate to the rest of the lead and seems out of place. It is also weirdly written and could be improved. For example instead of saying, "This has been one of the three most important Caribbean corals in terms of its contribution to reef growth and fishery habitat." it could say something like, "This species of coral has played a large part in the construction of various Caribbean reefs, providing important fishery habitats to numerous species of fish." You could even specify the species of fish you're talking about and link their Wikipedia pages for further reading. - I think overall though, it someone who knew nothing or very little about staghorn corals were to read this, they would have gained a better understanding after completion; which is the goal of all Wikipedia articles.

Talk page; - The talk page of this article is very minimal and only includes discussion on updating the conservation status of the coral species. It talks about the updated status from NOAA and whether or not it should be included in the article. - The article itself is rated by Wikipedia as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and Low-importance on the project's importance scale. - Further discussions of what subsections to add to the article to increase its relevance and weight, as well as what edits to the writing that currently exists to increase clarity and neutrality should be had. This includes, adding additional sources, updating ones that are out of date, simplifying and streamlining sentences, and rewriting certain sections with more detailed information.