User:Nikkig1221/Evaluate an Article

the article I chose to evaluate is "shark finning"

Lead section: The intro's first sentence defines what shark finning is in a very clear and concise way. It has a very in-depth background on the subject but isn't quite over-detailed.

content: this section dives into the process of shark finning and lists different types of sharks that are most commonly affected. The writer also explains that when a shark doesn't have its fin it is unable to survive which is a key issue. The issue is that it isn't up to date with current events. The most current events listed are from the early 2000s, and need more recent events.

Tone: overall this article presented unbiased information, but it's definitely phrased in a way that is against shark finning, or maybe that's just how I'm perceiving it because I am so against it myself.

References: cites a lot (143) of credible sources, and they are all real from what I checked. Due to the lack of current events these sources need to be updated.

Organization: each section is labeled very clearly and in an order that makes sense. The article would benefit from a current events section and updated policies.

media: The images included go along with what the article is discussing and adds emphasis to the issue

The talk page is generally about peoples annoyance with how many things are cited. People think its redundant that every sentence had a source attached to it. Other people were talking about how shocked they were about how much shark fins sell for

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

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.)

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.)