User:Nhusc/sandbox

Article Evaluation
This is the article evaluation exercise and I will be using the article on the genus Tomopteris as the subject of the exercise.

One of the first things that stands out about the article is that, when addressing the yellow bioluminescence noted by E. Newton Harvey, the article does not make it clear if this yellow bioluminescence is found in all identified species within the genus or just some of them. Additionally, it goes on to state that yellow bioluminescence is rare in marine animals immediately prior to saying that many species of plankton, which includes the genus Tomopteris, exhibit yellow bioluminescence. Therefore, it is left unclear exactly how common yellow bioluminescence is.

Another issue is that no source is given for the mechanism of the bioluminescence is not well-understood and no source is given for the claim that some members of this genus use bioluminescent particles as a defensive mechanism.

The article also abruptly ends with a statement about the trends in the size of the species within this genus without it being under a separate section or connected to the previous paragraph in any meaningful manner.

Overall, the information presented in the article is poorly organized and severely limited. More information about the genus, such as including at least some of the species in the genus, would greatly benefit the article.

The article also makes use of several potentially out of date sources, with the most notable example dating back to 1888. Using more recent sources would likely be beneficial to the article.

On the positive side, the article is neutral in tone and the links do seem to be functional with the exception of a link to the definition of the genus according to an online medical dictionary. However, an online medical dictionary might not be the best source for information on a marine invertebrate.

Aside from my own question about where the information that the genus may emit bioluminescent particle as defensive measure, the talk page for the article only references that it is part of the WikiProject Animals and the WikiProject Marine Life. It is listed as both a stub and an article of low importance.

Article Selection
All of these options are good. - Josh

Article #1: The Genus Tomopteris
I covered this article for my article evaluation exercise and what I said in it still stands.

Bullet List of Potential Improvements:


 * Overall, more detail, particularly regarding general characteristics (size, habitat, diet, behavior, etc.)
 * List at least a few of the species in the genus
 * Reference more recent sources
 * See if a source can be found for the claim about the bioluminescence potentially being a defensive measure and who hypothesizes this
 * Organize the paragraphs in the article under headings based on what information about the genus they cover, such as one section addressing bioluminescence in the genus

Article #2: Glaucus marginatus
There seems to be very little information about this species that has been published. One of the potential sources I have found indicates this organism has not even been confirmed as a separate species from Glaucus atlanticus, a species that has a fairly detailed Wikipedia article. Information about this species in particular is likely going to be scarce. So, this is probably not an ideal choice for an article.

Bullet List of Potential Improvements:


 * Overall, more detail, particularly regarding general characteristics (size, habitat, diet, behavior, etc.)
 * More sources

Article #3: The Family and Genus Notobranchaeidae
Bullet List of Potential Improvements:


 * Overall, more detail, particularly regarding what sets them apart from other members of the clade Gymnosomata
 * More information on their life history and their morphology would be especially beneficial to the article
 * Utilize citations in the actual article
 * More sources, especially since there are only two

Article #4: Cranchia scabra
Despite having several references, there is not much in the way of detailed information is present in this species' article.

Bullet List of Potential Improvements:


 * Overall, more detail, particularly regarding general characteristics (diet, behavior, etc.)
 * Utilize more than one citation in the article so the source of the information presented is clear
 * More sources
 * Considering one of the sources dates back to 1817, more recent sources would be extremely valuable

Article #5: Subfamily Cranchiinae
This is the subfamily that the species Cranchia scabra belongs to and it is also a stub article. Aside from listing several genera and species, almost all which link to stub articles or do not even have pages yet, there is little information given about the subfamily.

Bullet List of Potential Improvements:


 * The characteristics set this subfamily apart from other members of the family Cranchiidae
 * The genera are contained in the subfamily (the article claims there are 4 but only lists 3)
 * Utilize citations in the actual article
 * More sources as there is currently only one listed

Peer Review by Autumn Bennett: These are only article reviews, so I can't really review your own article, but your assessments of others is pretty great. (: