User:Vidalka/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Vampire squid)

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.)

The vampire squid is appealing to me because I find both bioluminescence and cephalopods fascinating. It is relevant to the class because we have discussed the organism in the context of deep sea environments and it is important because it helps to give us insight into the biodiversity and adaptations of organisms in the deep sea.

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 topic sentence gives a good broad overview of what a vampire squid is and the following sentence starts to go into why it is unique. It gives a semblance of an overview of the following sections but does not include reproduction. It also does not appear to be trying to convince the reader of anything, keeping an unbiased language. Information seems to be both relevant and up to date, with new sources from as recent as 2021. However, more sources need to be included in the description section. Of the links I tried, all seemed to work and be mostly recent or a frequently cited paper. Some formatting and grammar could be improved but it is easy to understand the points the authors where trying to get across. Images are properly captioned and laid out in an appealing way. There are not many conversations going on on the Talk page but the ones that are contain people asking relevant questions. Both the article and class focused on the habitat and adaptations of the vampire squid like living in the oxygen minimum zone deep in the ocean and having bioluminescence. However, the wikipedia article provided more background information than we went into in class. Overall, this is a well composed article containing a lot of information. I only think it could be improved by rephrasing some of the grammatically poor sentences and digging into the scientific literature to see if there are a couple more recent articles that may be able to help in correcting or adding information.