User:Mjradek/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Aurelia aurita

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the Aurelia aurita article, or the Moon Jellyfish article, because of my general interest in the topic as well as the relevance to the course I am taking. This article contained a large amount of content, and I believed that I could reach a good understanding of how to evaluate a Wiki article with a subject that I found interest in.

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 Notes: The lead section was concise, provided a good introduction to the topic of the article. The second paragraph could have included other details, such as general information regarding distribution (which would have connected the lead section to the first content section). There were some weaker sentences in the second paragraph of the lead section, but overall very direct. I would recommend including details that connect back to the main content and connect the individual sections of the article more efficiently.

Content and Organization Notes: The content was up to date as most recent edits were made within the previous week. I would have included more information on the distribution itself rather than the impact that DO has on the distribution. The distribution section of the content was a strong start in the first paragraph. The author seemingly wrote the following paragraph from a scientific standpoint, and the relationship between summer hypoxia and moon jellyfish could have been a separate paragraph/different section. The conclusion of the paragraph (and the distribution section) was well-written and provided a great overview for the distribution of moon jellyfish. The feeding section was as elaborate as necessary to provide as much information possible given the quality of resources available on the topic. The body system and predator sections were very similar to that of the feeding section as well, although the final paragraph of the predators section could have been placed into a different category, such as "life history". And the body system section also included information that I would have placed in a "life history" section as well. I would attempt to enhance the writing quality, especially within the distribution section.

Tone and Balance Notes: Tone is neutral and factual, very much too the point which is great for a Wiki article

Sources and Reference Notes: Sources/References are diverse and well-researched

Images and Media Notes: The images and media found on this article greatly enhanced the qualtiy of the article in its entirety!

Talk section Notes: The talk section of this article provided some great insights into the shortcomings of the articles. Others found copyright issues and reference issues that I was unaware of initially. I especially appreciate the discussion regarding the "aggressiveness" of the species as this species is not known to be aggressive, and I'm glad that users were able to acknowledge their own personal expereinces as well as the realm of known information within the scientific community to address the misinformation in the article. I found that some comments contained elements of passive aggressiveness and condescention, but other than that this Talk Section was incredibly helpful.

Overall Impression Notes: I thought that this article was well-written for the most part. Many marine species are difficult to document, and the barriers between academic articles and the common public is a difficult bridge to gap. However, this article provides new information. There is definitely room for this page to grow as more discoveries regarding Moon Jellies are documented and accessible to those willing to deliver this information to the Wikipedia Community.