User:Ernieviolet/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

• Name of article: ( Colossal squid )
• Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because the colossal squid is such an extreme example of how little we know about deep-sea biota. Additionally, it exhibits abyssal gigantism, which is particularly interesting to me given what I know about the dietary constraints of the deep sea. Given the fact that there is little known about this species, I thought evaluating this article would be worthwhile.

Lead

Guiding questions

• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation

The Lead introductory sentence simply gives the scientific and common names as well as the fact that it is believed to be the most massive squid. Much of the introduction is about the size of the animal, and does not include much about the major sections of the article. The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article. It is concise but perhaps too focused on one aspect of the article.

Content

Guiding questions

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
• Is the content up-to-date?
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation

The article's content is relevant to the topic. It includes sections on morphology, distribution, ecology and life history, as well as the history of its discovery and analyses of specimens. The content does appear up-to-date, because even though most of the reference material are 5-10 years old, there has been only minor significant changes in our knowledge of the species due to it's rarity. I do not believe there is a lack or excess of information, because there is so little we know for sure about this species in the first place. Other content that could be included, such as the lore about deep-sea monsters, are written about in other articles. This article provides links to those articles in the see also section.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions

• Is the article neutral?
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation

The article seems to carry a neutral viewpoint throughout, though there is a notable focus its size and anatomical differences between the colossal squid and the giant squid. With that being said, it might be unfair to make this criticism because there is so little currently known about its behavior. The behavior, therefore, is what seems strikingly underrepresented. I did not find myself being swayed to think one thing or another about this species by this article. I mainly came away with an understanding of this species' place in the field of deep-sea biology.

Sources and References

Guiding questions

• Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

I believe most of the facts are backed by reliable sources, but there are more references to news articles than I would have expected for an article about an organism. A quick check through Google Scholar makes it seem as though the sources do not reflect the entire body of scientific research on this species. The dates of the sources, do, however, reflect the dates of the larger body of research and the links that I checked all work.

Organization

Guiding questions

• Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

The article is certainly concise and easy to follow. There are minor grammatical mistakes, but they do not take much away from the article. I did not find any spelling mistakes. I am pleased with the organization of the article other than the introduction lacking a proper description of what the article offers as a whole.

Images and Media

Guiding questions

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation

There are minimal media in this article, understandably, but the pictures included do provide a sense of the size and anatomy of this species. The few images used adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. Given the lack of media, I cannot suggest improvements on the layout of the images in the article.

Checking the talk page

Guiding questions

• What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation

The conversations on the talk page are mostly about source verification for statements that seem uncertain considering the relative lack of information about this species. It is rated C-Class without having been checked against the B-Class criteria. It is a part of the Cephalopods WikiProject. One thing we have been very clear about in class is the huge amount of uncertainty regarding deep-sea biota, and while this talk page addresses and respects this, the contributors do seem somewhat attached to the limited sources available.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions

• What is the article's overall status?
• What are the article's strengths?
• How can the article be improved?
• How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation

The article is considered a level-5 vital article in Biology, Animals, and has been given "Top-importance on the importance scale. The article succeeds in presenting the most widely accepted knowledge of this species, and does so in a logical order that follows that of the articles for just about every species I have looked into on Wikipedia. The article could certainly be improved by including a wider range of scientific papers available and by making comparisons that could add to the talk page. If a range of different papers were included, it would be even more important to emphasize that much of the information is unproven. I think the article is well-developed given the circumstances, but could be expanded upon if done so conscientiously.

Optional activity

• Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~

• Link to feedback: