User:Tori.r.m/Evaluate an Article

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

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 this article because I wanted to evaluate an article on a marine organism and the Viperfish seemed like an interesting organism.

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

This article's introductory sentence does a good job of giving a short and concise description of what the rest of will be talking about. The lead section does a good job at introducing Viperfish however, there is one or two sentences that are too detailed and could go into one of the body paragraphs. The lead section does not include information that is not present in the article.

Content

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and does not stray from the topic however there is not a lot of content within the article, it could definitely use more information. This article is up to date. The content that is provided does not seem as though it strays from the topic. This article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented topics or populations, it talks strictly about Viperfish.

Tone and Balance

The tone of the article is very neutral, it speaks almost entirely in facts with little to no extra content. I do not feel that the article attempts to persuade a reader in any particular direction, thus there are no particular viewpoints that feel over or under represented.

Sources and References

Most of the sources on this article seem to be from research studies and published reports so the sources seem to be reliable. There is a wide variety of sources on this article, some sources are from as current as 2023 and some of the sources are a bit outdated (dating back to early 50s). Most of the sources do seem to reflect the literature of the topic. The sources have many different authors from what seems to be many different parts of the world. The links I checked did work and brought me to the proper sites.

Organization and Writing quality

I think the organization of the article was done very well with different sections being dedicated to different facts about the organism. The article was very easy to read and understand and was very concise in its information. I did not see or notice any grammatical errors while reading the article.

Images and Media

The article includes two images. These images do enhance the understanding of the topic as they are to provide an overall picture of a Viperfish and a picture describing one of the specific species of Viperfish. The images are captioned with links to information about the specific species shown. The images are laid out in a visually appealing way.

Talk Page Discussion

There is not a lot of discussion going on in the talk page however there was some comments providing other sources to look into and some other helpful information. This article is rated as a start page which makes sense as it is not super long. It states that it is "of interest" to the WikiProjects fishes page.

Overall Impressions

As stated by the article rating it is a good starting point. The information does not seem biased and there are plenty of sources cited however, it definitely feels like there could be more information on the organism overall. It seems to be a pretty well done article so far however.