User:Sach548/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Walking fish

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 chose the article Walking fish because I've never learnt about walking fish and the title was intriguing. When I think of fish, I think of those that swim such as salmon or goldfish. This association with swimming fish stems from being seeing indoor aquariums and eating fish such as cod and salmon. Growing up, I watched many cartoons depicting fish in a similar manner. I'm sure others share this mentality. Since this page may be someone's first exposure to walking fish, the information must be accurate and clear for people to read. My first impression of the article was that it seemed very short, and even though I had never heard of walking fish before, I was still expecting it to be longer. At the same time, the length of the article could be interpreted as the article being concise.

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.)

The article appears to be written from a neutral point of view, for it simply states a few facts about different types of walking fish. The first sentence of the lead section gives a general overview of the entire article; however, the lead section is relatively short. This seems reasonable considering the article is short and there isn't much information to describe. Consequently, there are only three short subtopics for the entire article. Everything seems grammatically correct. Much of the "Types" section has been written with reference to online articles that either appear to be from unreliable websites or the article no longer exists. Additionally, the most recently published source is from 2013 so the reference list has not been updated with new information in nearly a decade. The page appears outdated, and this is supported by the page only having six revisions since 2009 (as stated in the "view history" page) and there being only two conversations on the talk page occurring in 2006, one of which appears to have involved an argument between editors. The article was part of a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment". Since the concept of walking fish feels unusual, more images would make the page more interesting and informative, for it would be easier to visualize the motion being described. This page could be improved by incorporating more recent information regarding walking fish, updating the sources for the information already listed, and including more images of the species discussed.