User:Latkanybrian/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Anglerfish

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because it is relevant to the deep sea study of anglerfish. Furthermore, my group discussion surrounds the luring mechanism of the angler fish, which is discussed, but only briefly, in thus article. Thus, it seems very relevant the topic to the class and to my area of study.

Evaluate the article
The lead section contains an opening sentence that gives a good description of anglerfish. Although very brief, the lead gives a good introduction into the sections to come, which include evolution, classification, anatomy, behavior, threats, human consumption, timeline of genera, and references. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article, and it is very concise.

The content that is described in the article is all relevant to anglerfish, which is important. The content is also relatively up to date, considering some of the references are from 2022. There is a significant portion of the content that is missing, which relates to the luring mechanism and bioluminescence. The article has nothing to do with Wikipedia's equity gaps.

The article has a very neutral, scientific tone to it. There are no claims that seem biased in any way, as the page concerns a specific deep sea animal, and nothing that can be subject to severe biasses. There are no viewpoints that are over or under represented, as the tone is very neutral. There are a few minority viewpoints in the form of speculation on certain mechanisms, but they are not overpowering. There is no persuasive techniques in the article.

All of the facts are backed by relevant, recent sources. The sources are generally thorough, but are missing a few of the newer papers out about anglerfish. There are some current sources, but also a lot from the early 2000s. The authors of the papers do not seem to have some diversification to them, but it could be better. There are a few better sources available, which leads to the gap in this article. The links work.

The article is clear and concise, and the writing is consistent and well written. There are no serious grammatical errors upon initial inspection. The article is very well organized into sections and subsection, specifically the "behavior" section.

There are a few good images of angler fish in the article that are all relevant. They are well captioned and all seem to meet wikipedias copyright regulations. They are laid out in a visually appealing way.

There are a few discussions on the talk page, most of which are questioning the accuracy of certain claims. The article is rated B-Class and is a part of a few WikiProjects including Food and Drink, Fishes, and Fisheries and Fishing. Wikipedia goes more into depth about the fish in terms of the identifying characteristics of the fish.

Overall, it is rated mediocrely, considered a level-4 B-Class article that has some necessary improvements. The strengths include the introduction and the description of the fish. The areas that need improvement are those discussing the mechanisms, including the luring mechanism. The article is underdeveloped, but not significantly.