User:Jmanoog/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Giant oarfish

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
The focus of our group project is the Giant oarfish (Regalecus glesne). At first glance, the article covers a sufficient breadth of topics regarding the giant oarfish, but lacks depth in most areas and fails to cite primary literature throughout.

Evaluate the article

 * Strong lead. It is concise but provides sufficient context regarding the scientific classification of the giant oarfish, its morphology, and its relationship to popular culture.


 * Several areas throughout the article make claims that lack a citation.
 * There is no irrelevant content throughout the article. Subheadings such as "description" and "behavior" could benefit from more up to date information from more recent scientific articles.
 * The article lacks bias throughout. All points are communicated in a neutral tone.
 * Sources are largely from primary literature with the exception of reference 14, which redirects to a web page that is no longer in existence, and sources 16 and 17, which are online articles with information that may not be verifiable.
 * There is little to no activity on the "Talk" page with the last major discussion in 2013. This article seems ripe for revamping.