User:Kylevee0924/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
The Wikipedia article on Colossal squid.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article specifically because it is the exact article related to my group's chosen topic for Deep Sea Biology with Professor Olins.

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 does contain a concise, yet descriptive first sentence, detailing some taxa to which the colossal squid belongs. The introduction does not contain a direct description of all of the article's contents, but does give further information regarding the more baseline information (i.e. enough for a quick and easy understanding of the colossal squid). The lead is certainly concise and does not contain any superfluous information.

Most of the content included within this article is up-to-date, with some exceptions including recent citations to articles from over 20 years ago, when there are other related articles that have come out more recently. However, all of the content is relevant to the topic of the page, and in fact draws comparisons between the topic and other similar topics for better understanding.

The article contains no biases and is purely informative, drawing on articles and research to support its claims. The article is indeed concise and easy to read, tying in appropriate references when necessary. The images included in the article are well-captioned, and are additionally relevant to the topic at hand.

In the talk page, there have been discussions regarding adding and subtracting of material (interestingly, both fictional and real), as well as references to this article being a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment". The article is a C-class, level-5 vital article, and is a part of the WikiProject Cephalopods at the time of this writing.In my personal opinion, while the information that is included in the article is relevant and informative, there is room for more, both in terms of quality and quantity (more so the latter).