User:Squidney1206/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Box jellyfish

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I've heard of box jellyfish before, but I don't know much about them. I know that they're extremely deadly and live near Australia. This topic is important because if I ever get stung by one of these, I'd like to know what I need to do!

Lead section
The lead section has a strong introductory sentences that includes the organism's class and its most noticeable characteristic, which is their shape. It does not seem to include a description of the major sections of the article, but it includes some information that is discussed in a few of these sections. It does not include any information that is not discussed in the rest of the article. It is concise and covers the box jellyfish clearly.

Content
I think the content of the article is relevant to the topic; it talks about the taxonomy, description, distribution, detection, ecology, genetics, danger to humans, and ways to protect yourself from them. The detection section sticks out to me a little bit, but I think it fits in well enough because the point is that detecting box jellyfish can help inform people if they're in the area. Every section of the article appears to fit in and contain pertinent information. The article includes information in the danger to humans section about box jellyfish stings being more deadly in Malaysia and the Philippines because of the lack of medical facilities and the required anti-venom, which relates to an underrepresented population, but the topic of box jellyfish itself does not deal with an equity gap.

Tone and Balance
The article is written in a neutral point of view, and I did not notice any claims that seemed biased. All viewpoints appear to be balanced, although the topic of box jellyfish does not have that much debate surrounding it, so there aren't really many competing viewpoints. The article is not persuasive.

Sources and References
All of the facts in the article are backed up with sources, and these sources appear to be reliable. Most of them are scientific research papers published in peer-reviewed journals, and there are some news articles sprinkled in there, but they are related to the events where box jellyfish have hurt people. The news articles are not being used to make claims, but instead to show that an event occurred. The article includes sources from 1973 up to 2023 written by a wide variety of authors. There are definitely some articles that could be replaced with more scientifically reliable papers, such as one called "Australian Box Jellyfish: 15 Fascinating Facts," but most of the articles are from scientific journals. I clicked on several links, and they all worked.

Organization and writing quality
The article is very well-written, and I had no trouble understanding it. I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. I like the way the article is organized; the flow of ideas is in logical order.

Images and Media
It includes several images with informative captions. Each image is cited with the original author/photographer, so they adhere to the copyright regulations. I think the images are laid out in a visually appealing way, and they appear closely to the related information.

Talk page discussion
There are a few comments about some confusion with the speed that the article claims box jellyfish can swim at. The speed seems a little high for a jellyfish, and someone commented that the article cited for that does not actually mention a speed. The article is rated a level 5 vital article, and it is in the Animals and Marine life WikiProjects. We have not talked about this specific organism in class, but if we had, I think the article would be different in that it goes into much more detail than we would have time for.

Overall impressions
The article seems to still be a work in progress, but I thought it included good information about the box jellyfish. Its strengths are its detail, writing style, and images. I liked all the links so I could go to a page for an unknown subject, and I liked the way it was written. It seems that some of the facts may not be entirely correct, so I'd say the article's weakness is the presence of some incorrect/conflicting information. The article is very well-developed and each section contains very thorough information about the box jellyfish. I liked it!