User:Wahoobbs!!/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I utilized the "Academic Disciplines" link to discover a Wikipedia page on Insect Collecting, which I'll be doing my evaluation on.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I was surprised to find this under the Global Physical Sciences search in Academic Disciplines. I have experience in insect archiving, so I figured it'd be good to evaluate a page on a subject I have background in. Furthermore, the page is requesting further citation support, meaning it may be a good article for evaluation.

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 provides relevant information, such as cultural and academic significance. However, both pieces of info have a distinct lack of citations to support the claims.

The lead is concise. It provides relevant main info and quick pieces of info to support main points.

Content
The content has been updated sparingly. Most edits occurred before 2010. It is likely due for editing soon. However, the information present is relevant. The page also utilizes many pictures that are helpful for describing techniques used.

Tone and Balance
The information is highly neutral due to mainly being techniques and descriptions of tools. However, there is significant emphasis on Japanese relevance which seems biased due to the likelihood that bug catching is likely prevalent in other countries.

Sources and References
The page definitely is lacking in secondary sources and overall citations. There are multiple instances of asking for citations and only two of the 8 citations are post 2000. Links for citations work but there are a few citations that are generic websites which are likely unfit for use as sources. However, the proper citations are great due to literary relevance and are very thorough.

Organization and Writing Quality
The page is well divided. The page is concise but likely because it is overall lacking in information under each heading. Major points of the topic are addressed but could likely go into more detail. For example, little is discussed about how and why institutions such as universities collect insects.

Images and Media
The images are fantastic and relate to the topic. However, many of the images lack descriptions and most importantly a citation or permission for use for the pictures aren't present. It is possible that some pictures were taken from citations already utilized, but that is not addressed.

Talk Page Discussion
The page is part of a Wikiproject (insects). There are a few discussions, but interestingly some comments left don't have wiki signatures, so relevant users aren't known. For the Wikiproject, the page has been rated "start-class", which would explain its worked-on but otherwise lacking nature.

Overall Impressions
The page has a good base but needs work, especially as mentioned at the top of the page with citations. I believe the page would also benefit from more information about cultural relevance so the basis for the page isn't just tools or techniques used. I also think that, like mentioned in the lead section, information about academic importance and storage would be beneficial to the page.