User:Matthew-Christian Garcia/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Koi

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I love the ocean. I love everything about the ocean to include the waves, reef, and fish. Also, koi fish has been very popular in terms of being in malls and tattoos. It interested me and drew me in once I seen the option.

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 section:

The lead sentence has a good introductory sentence as it references where the koi came from and how it is spelt in the language, which is Japanese. There are some topics within the article that are not mentioned in the introduction. Some sections that were not mentioned in the lead section were "difference between goldfish" and "disease". These were topics, that to me, were thrown out there out of the blue. Although the topics were mentioned in earlier sections, it was not in the lead section.

Content:

The article has relevant information throughout as it mentions koi fish longevity, its variety, how it got to be so diverse, the cultural aspect of it, and its significance. There does not seem to missing topic as the information seemed relevant and concise. The article seems up to date as well as the talk page has edits and replied in 2019. The article also talks about the 21st century and information about koi fish in 2018.

Tone and balance:

The tone of the article seems neutral as no points-of-view are being taken. I do not feel persuaded to choose a type of side as there is none. There were no words like "I believe" or "this is important". In the article there are not too many viewpoints, but the ones that were in the article were acknowledges. For example, when the article mentioned how koi were commonly thought to be bred, a different and neutral viewpoint of a scientific point which brought up DNA was added.

Sources and references:

Checking through many sources, many of them have doi or have a current source. I clicked on many articles and all of them worked and the latest date of sourcing I found was 2002. There were many sources to click through but from clicking on it and reading some of it, it seems reliable. I would like to comment that some of the information in the article is not cited. For example, in the article there was a statement about koi being sold for $2 million but there was no source or citation of any sort.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is well organized and flows well. It goes well with the history then etymology, taxonomy, then varieties. There are no grammatical issues that I picked up on as well as any sort of speed bump with the flow of the article. The major points in the lead section were emphasized and well defined.

Images and media:

There are many pictures and some videos in the article that show the varieties of the koi fish. They are all captioned with no signs of copyright. Overall, the pictures and videos are well defined.

Talk page discussion:

There are discussions about the exact origin of the koi fish and there are some fact checks within the talk section. Some of it is corrections for the Japanese language and how it is typed up and worded. The last edit was in 2019 and it seems to be a pretty busy talk page. The article is rated as a C-class and is part of three wikiprojects which are Japan/Flora fauna, fishes, and aquarium fishes.

Overall impression:

The overall status of the article is good as it has a neutral point with relevant information and good sources. The talk page wants more action from the editor which should happen as the talk page makes suggestions that look very valid. The strengths of the article is the depth of it as it relates to goldfish, carp, and the variety of koi out there. A change I would make is to add more resources on facts that are said and more activity from the editor on the talk page.