User:Rabbits65/Evaluate an Article

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

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 picked this article from the list of C-Class Articles. This article is important for people who are generally curious about aquarium fish, and also people who may be interested in owning Lemon Tetra, as it can help them to decide if they are a good fit for their aquarium, and if so, how to care for them. My preliminary impression of this article is that it was well put together, but potentially biased. It has clear, sensible headings, a short but effective lead paragraph, but even in a brief scan of the article, one can find some statements which are more opinion than fact.

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: The lead section is clear and concise. The introductory sentence gives an effective view into the content of the article, and it is an appropriate length. The lead section gives a brief description of the Lemon Tetra's appearance and origin, both of which are sections found in the article, and makes reference to it's common presence in aquariums, which is also elaborated upon later. However, the lead section makes no reference to Reproduction or Development, the former of which is one of the longest sections of the article. Regardless of length, both of these sections are present in the article, but unreferenced in the lead section.

Content: The content of the article is relevant to its topic. All content pertains to the Lemon Tetra, though there are noticeable interjections of personal beliefs throughout; a feature which is unwanted in Wikipedia's goal of providing unbiased information. The content appears to be up to date, and does not misrepresent any population.

Tone: The article is very clearly biased, as the author repeatedly references how certain characteristics 'the beauty of the fish', and how, when paired with certain other fish, Lemon Tetras create a 'stunning display'. The author also states that the fishes eating habits have 'to be witnessed to be fully appreciated', a blatant statement of personal opinion. These claims are all clearly biased, and place one opinion above any others.

Sources and References: There are very few sources listed, and those that are only cover some of the information provided, meaning that much of the information listed is without a clear source. The links are functional, however, there is much more current and thorough information available on Lemon Tetra that is unused.

Organization and Writing Quality: The organization is very sensible, with each section correlating to a necessary part of a complete entry of the Lemon Tetra. The writing quality is fairly strong other than the aforementioned bias, it has a mature & informative tone.

Images and Media: There is a singular small picture of a Lemon Tetra, captioned with 'a lemon tetra'. This caption does not use correct punctuation, nor does it acknowledge the environment around the Tetra. Given that much of the article pertains to the Tetra's presence in the aquarium, it may be appropriate to note its surroundings in the image. However, the image appears to be properly credited.

Talk Page: There is a WikiProjects on Fish Taxa associated with the Lemon Tetra page, which has a C-Class Rating. There are no conversations happening.

Overall Impressions: This article is considered a C-Class article. It effectively covers most necessary topics with relative coherence; however, where this article falls short is its clear bias. The interjections of personal belief is unwarranted and goes against Wikipedia's policies. This article could be much improved if a new editor were to go through and alter any biased language to be neutral. The article can be considered incomplete on the basis that it is severely lacking in citations & sources. Another worthwhile edit would be to add more current sources and citations. Between this and the removal of opinionated language, the article would be very well improved.