User:Megcla523/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Alpheidae

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I found one in lab this week and thought they were cool. I really enjoyed this article and learned a lot from many reliable sources.

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 section was well written and met all criteria recommended. It was three short paragraphs that gave a proper overview of the page in a clear and enticing way.

Content

- The entire article was relevant to the subject without being bias. I am unaware if content is missing; however, most of the sources are semi-dated, with the most recent being in 2018. It may be underrepresented due to the shortness of the article, but the information is not lacking on its own.

Tone and Balance

- The article was purely neutral and did not try to convince or persuade the reader in any way.

Sources

- The article has twenty references with three external links, but four did not work. The majority did work and seemed to be factual and reliable.

Organization

- The article is well written and easy to read and comprehend.

Images and Media

- There are five images that help the reader understand the corresponding text. Each is captioned informatively with proper citation. The last two may have looked better spaced down on the page a little further, but that's overly critical.

Talk Page

- The article failed its Good Article review due to not having enough information and as I previously stated was quite short. The talk page itself is not very long, but does show multiple collaborative efforts to improve the article's information.

Overall

- I think this is a fairly good article, but could be improved by providing additional information from more current sources. The Good Article Review left notes on ways to improve many aspects of the article, so it would be beneficial to adhere to those. Therefore, I would say this article is underdeveloped but has great potential.