User:Millstf/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Snailfish

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 snailfish greatly interest me and there is not a ton known about them. It matters to expand this page because the more we learn about deep sea biology, the more we can be informed about our own world. My preliminary impression of the page was that it was well organized but lacking some information.

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: It does not provide a broad overview of the entire article, and instead only focuses on highlighting certain sections. It does not mention diet or reproduction at all. It does have an introductory sentence and is fairly concise.

Content: The content is relevant and up to date. I do think it is missing some information that could be specific to the species, such as more in-depth information about reproduction, life span, and its diet, as well as its morphology. The rest of the information is interesting and pertinent to the topic. It does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance: The article does appear to be neutral and does not try to persuade the reader of any opinion.

Sources and References: Most sources seem reliable- many are peer reviewed and current (within the last 10 years). Two sources are from the 1990's and 1980's respectively and will need to be reviewed for accuracy. Some could be replaced by other information, as various rely on news sources when there are other available peer-reviewed sources available for use. The sources come from a variety of authors and papers. All of the links except for one work.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is well written and organized with no obvious grammatical errors.

Images and Media: The images in the article are well laid out and enhance the topic. They are properly captioned and referenced. There could be more concerning drawings of them throughout their life cycle or in their habitat.

Talk Page Discussion: The talk page is mainly identifying discrepancies between the information in the article and the sources the article cited. It also identifies some information that might be better removed because there is little evidence to back it up. The article has been rated Start Class and is being used in WikiProjects Fishes, which is a part of WikiProjects Tree of Life. This page includes discussions between people who have expertise in the field and speak different languages. In class, this differs because while we are college students focused on biology, most of us have no underlying knowledge of species in this specific way. We also engage in primarily english in the classroom and don't have to navigate a language barrier.

Overall Impressions: Overall, the article could use more development. It is lacking in some topic areas and should re-reference its sources to double check some of the information in order to improve it. Its strengths are that it is well organized and neutrally written, but could improve from more information being added.