User:Kkitrick/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pelagic zone

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because the pelagic zone is a major region of the ocean, and it was the first thing that came to mind. A well curated wikipedia article on the pelagic zone is important, since it can be used as a jumping off point for different habitats, species, and ocean characteristics. My first impression was that the image of the layers of the pelagic zone is helpful, in addition to the box underneath the image that includes links to other marine habitats.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is a good introduction to the pelagic zone. One comment I'm unsure about is that "the pelagic zone can be thought of as an imaginary cylinder or water column between the surface of the sea and the bottom." I'm not sure if describing the pelagic zone as an "imaginary cylinder" is helpful or an accurate comparison for the expansive habitat. Additionally, in the second paragraph, I think starting off with the concluding sentence of "The pelagic zone refers to the open, free waters away from the shore, where marine life can swim freely in any direction unhindered by topographical constraints," would be a better transition to talking about what affects marine life in the pelagic zone.

I found the breakdown of depths and zones within the pelagic zone to be comprehensive, but not too detailed for an overview. One sentence I found unnecessary, or too detailed and not directly related to the pelagic zone, was the explanation of Thorson's rule as the sole fact under pelagic invertebrates. Also, as I read in the "talk" tab, I agree that some content on oxygen levels and nutrient dispersal in the zone would be helpful. Something feels like it is missing, as there is more to the pelagic zone than its organisms and its depth classifications. Maybe information on energy transfer / trophic cascades would also be helpful under "pelagic ecosystem" to portray the connectedness of the ecosystem instead of just outlining its organisms.

The tone and balance throughout the article is very neutral. There are no attitudes or viewpoints to really be taken when discussing the water column.

This article's References section only contains 11 citations, which seems short. I counted various instances of a "citation needed" substituted for a citation for information throughout the article. A good amount of the citations are older (1957, 1971, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2012), with 2 from within the past 7 years.

The article is well organized by being broken down into the introduction, various depths, and ecosystem, besides the possible content additions discussed before. It was mostly clear and concise, and I didn't catch any spelling or grammatical errors.

The three present images give good insight into the pelagic zone, but there is room for improvement. One image depicts its different layers and depths, though its caption is short at one sentence.

Another image shows illustrated organisms and their related depths with a longer caption that explains how the image is not to scale and other potential misconceptions for the image. The third image shows a "wandering albatross", which I think shows how the pelagic zone is not only inhabited by marine animals, but I think adding images of actual marine animals could also be helpful for understanding the organisms that inhabit the pelagic zone full time.

On the article's talk page, it is rated C-class, meaning "substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material", which I would agree on. It is part of 4 high-importance WikiProjects (Fisheries and Fishing, Oceans, Lakes, Limnology and Oceanography) and 2 mid-importance ones (Biology, Geology). The talk pages gives good insight into what others feel should be added to the article on the pelagic zone, such as content on the benthopelagic zone, hydrothermal vents, oxygen and nutrient levels, and pelagic fish and birds. The discussion here feels similar to Perusall discussions in class, where people are allowed to ask clarifying questions about the topic of the article and specifics mentioned.

Overall, the article gives a clear and concise explanation of the pelagic zone. Its strengths were its explanation of the layers within the water column and its images, although they could be expanded upon. The article can be improved by adding content about the interconnectedness of the ecosystem, citations to all facts, and more recent references. The article is moderately developed, but most of the references seemed older and could use updating