User:LydBo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Deep sea

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article to evaluate since our course is titled Deep Sea Biology, and I found it fitting to look up a Wikipedia page on the deep sea. I also wanted to see if it confirmed what we had already learned in class, or if it had different or differing information.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section : The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. It reads, "The deep sea is broadly defined as the ocean depth where light begins to fade, at an approximate depth of 200 m (660 ft) or the point of transition from continental shelves to continental slopes." Not only is this a good description, but it is also accurate and confirms the information we learned in class. The lead also includes a brief description of the article's main sections, it is concise, and doesn't include any information not in the article.

Content : The content of the article covers environmental characteristics, biology, and exploration headings, which are all mentioned in the article's lead. After reading the content, I believe that it is up-to-date and accurate from my current knowledge. It mentions important aspects of the deep sea, such as the different zones and their associated depths, as well as key characteristics of deep-sea organisms like fish (e.g. tubular eyes due to scarce light) and gelatinous organisms (e.g. flotation chambers with fluid). One comment I have about the content section is that it is missing some references/citations at the end of some sentences.

Tone and Balance : The article is written from a neutral point of view. There are no associated biases that I noticed in the article, and the wording is purely factual. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader on one position or another.

Sources and References : The majority of the sources used in this article are current. The majority of dates range from the early 2000s to 2022, although I did see once source from 1991. After clicking on a few of the links, I noticed that the majority are published in accredited journals, although there are a few from random websites that could be replaced with more relevant and trustworthy sources. One comment I have is that a lot of the references on the marine organisms concern only deep-sea fishes. There are a couple on hydrothermal vents, but most relate to fish. I believe that some of these sources need to be expanded on to concern organisms other than just fish.

Organization and writing quality : The article is well-written: it is concise, clear, and broken up into smaller sections which makes it easy to read. I did not notice any spelling errors.

Images and Media : The included image and video each included captions and proper citation. The first image/graphic contributed to my overall learning of the article by showing the different zones and their depths; however, the video did not help my overall learning. One comment I have is that I wish there were more forms of media on the page.

Talk page discussion : There isn't much current talk on this article. The comments are dated and pertain to lack of measurements (e.g. depth is in meters) and changing the title to "Deep sea," which it now is. I believe all of these suggestions have been implemented.

Overall Impression : I would say that the article is well-developed and does a good job narrowing down the information into a concise and readable form. With so much specific information on the internet about the deep sea, I believe that this article does a good job making it concise and informative.