User:Lpmai/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Giant squid

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it focuses on a specific species of mollusca, Architeuthis dux. It is an article that is relevant to our class, about a species that I am interested in learning more about. At first glance, it looks like a good example of a well written Wikipedia article, and so I chose to evaluate it and read it more closely to see if it is as good as it appears.

Evaluate the article
To begin, the lead section is brief but descriptive, containing an explanation of the species classification as an example of "abyssal gigantism" as well as a few other facts that are all stated with a citation for reference. It does not contain a list of all the topics to be covered throughout the article, and it chooses to focus on the size of the species, which is one of the most distinctive features. Readers can learn more specifics about taxonomy, reproduction, and ecology as they read on.

The article's content is thorough: it offers information on size, taxonomy, habitat, morphology, reproductive cycle, genetics, ecological relevance, population estimates, debates over species classification, and even a timeline of information and images of the giant squid, with examples of images throughout time. It also provides information about the cultural depictions of the giant squid, with links so that readers can learn more about this in depth, as this article focuses on a scientific description of the species. However, this mention acknowledges the squid's relevance not only ecologically, but socially and culturally. The content is up to date and is balanced, with more information given for topics that are better studied and acknowledgement of a need for more research.

The article is well written; it is broken down into clearly labelled sections and the text is easy to understand while remaining neutral and professional. The article is drawn from 84 current sources, the majority of which are published scientific papers. It also uses sources such as news articles to back up some of its claims about the history and public perception of the giant squid. However, this section is lacking in sources, and could be improved by the addition of more sources and quotations about the history of public knowledge of the giant squid. Additionally, external links and "further readings" are provided in case readers want to learn more about a certain aspect of the article.

The images and media are relevant, and important to the understanding of this article. Images are used to show examples of anatomy, such as images of the tentacle and the beak. A map is used to represent the distribution of the giant squid, which makes its habitat easier to understand. One improvement to media that could be used would be the addition of more videos, or at least images, in the section that describes the hunt to get a giant squid on film. This media would make that section more relevant and interesting, as readers could see the product of what they are reading about.

The talk page for this article contains a few debates over the danger of giant squids to humans and their weight. It also contains discussions over changes that should have been (and eventually were) to different sections of the page, including layout. It is rated B on content.

My first impression is that this is a good example of a Wikipedia article. While some of the sections are more thorough than others, this also reflects available research on the topic. A few improvements could certainly be made. I would suggest making the lead section reflect what is to come in the article, and maybe moving the discussion of size to the "size" section. Additionally, I would add a few more sources (particularly peer reviewed sources) to parts of the article. Finally, I would add a few more images, as these are important for understanding the topic.