User:Littlecometsburning8/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Threadtail anthias

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It was an article requested underneath the Marine Life WikiProject page as a stub that needs improvement so I chose to evaluate it under the assumed premise that there would be much to critique.

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.)

Lead -- This section is relatively complete as far as phylogeny of the species and habitat / area of the ocean where it can be found. However, It could dedicate a couple sentences to remarkable features of this species. One sentence notes that it's the only member of its genus - this could likely be expanded upon slightly as well if there's research into why that is.

Content -- This article is incredibly lacking, as there are no subheadings after the initial lead paragraph. This article would do well to add subheadings: Habitat, Features, Behavior, & Development. Also, the current picture on this article is a drawing dated from 1906 - I assume there must be a more current image of this species available that could be added to improve the accuracy and comprehensibility of the article.

Tone and Balance -- There doesn't seem to be any prejudice / non-scientific language.

Sources and References -- The sources are currently very limited, only from Catalog of Fishes and a website database called "FishBase". While both sources seem scholarly and appropriate, it's important for an article to have a wide range of scholarly sources that knowledge is drawn from to show depth of information as well as a well of secondary sources for wikiusers to draw upon for more detailed information.

Organization and Writing Quality -- For the amount of writing that exists, it's clear and concise. There are minimal comments to be made on the organization, as the only paragraph is the lead section. However, commenting on the organization within that paragraph, it does well to comment first on phylogeny and then on general location within the ocean - I think these two pieces of information could be ordered either way because both are relevant for the lead section.

Talk Page Discussion -- The Talk page has no comments yet. This may make it difficult for future wikicitizens / editors to know where to start researching, find direction, or know if there are any areas specifically where other people would like to see improvement.

Overall Impressions -- Status: Stub ; Strengths: objective writing style, academic sources, concise lead section ; Weaknesses: lacking detail, just needs overall to be updated with current findings / research, needs an updated image / photograph. This article is under developed.