User:Oskiluvr/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Death Valley pupfish

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article as I found it to be an informative article about a species of fish that exclusively lives in Death Valley, which I had not previously known about. I felt like this article matters as it is uncommon to learn or think about fish and other aquatic species that live in the desert, especially a desert such as Death Valley. Additionally, it is important to learn about endangered species, such as the Death Valley pupfish, as it allows us to investigate the reasons behind why it is endangered. In this case, as well as many others, the article explains how human activity has led to the decline of this species. This information is important in order to allow us, as a society, to evaluate our effects on the environment. Overall, my preliminary impression was that this article allowed me to think and learn about an aspect of Death Valley that I have not explored before, and it gave me more insight as to how humans have affected the natural world.

Evaluate the article
I felt like the lead section of this article did a good job of concisely introducing the topic in a way that essentially summarized all the information that would be presented in the article. It did not include information that is not present later in the article.

The content of the article is definitely relevant to the topic that it is about, and it is fairly up-to-date. It seems to be a pretty thorough explanation of a species that has been very researched; thus, I doubt that there is any missing information. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia equity gaps, and it does not address historically underrepresented topics.

This article seems to be written from a neutral, unbiased point of view as it simply describes the species with factual information. The sources all seem to be relevant, and they from a diverse spectrum of resources. The sources seem to be quite thorough and reflect a wide range of information. All the links seem to work.

The article is overall well written and organized, with no grammatical or spelling mistakes. It is clear, concise, and easily understandable, and is broken down into sections that make sense. The images are appealing and helpful for understanding the topic, and they are well captioned. The Talk Page shows that this article was written as a part of WikiProject California, as well as WikiProject Fishes. However, it is rated as low-importance for both.

This Wikipedia article seems to be relatively complete as it seems to provide a synopsis of the available information on a relatively unknown species. I feel like this article's strengths are its concise, yet clear, nature, as well as its visually appealing and clear format (particularly the useful infobox which provides some technical information in a visual format). I feel like this article could benefit from having a visual description of the fish in the lead section as I feel like that is an important piece of information to start out with. In my opinion, this article is well-developed given the amount of information that exists on this topic.