User:Berzzerkerz/Evaluate an Article

Talk:Greenland shark: (link)

I am interested in research regarding the Arctic, and am using the article, "Greenland shark" to practice evaluating an article

The lead gives clear introductory information and utilizes necessary bolding to better direct the reader. Table of Contents provides clear sections.

Sections provide adequate information regarding the Greenland shark. I would like to see more on different interactions the shark has with other humans (non-Inuit), possibly relevant studies which study Greenland sharks in relation to their size and long life spans. I enjoyed the input of the shark's mutual relationship with the copepod, Ommatokoita elongata.

Presentation of the facts is neutral. Tone is informative, without much personal character. Sections appear balanced, with amount of information corresponding not to the importance of the section, but rather to the amount of present research and published sources on that section.

Information is adequately cited and linked. Terms and topics not known to the common person are hyperlinked to other Wikipedia articles. Reference list hyperlinks are clear and working (tested a couple).

Sections are organized well. Instead of "Life History," I would prefer a better section header, such as "Species Characterization." Information is presented with good flow, and concisely. Overview of the basic information of the shark was presented, followed by more specific aspects relating to the shark; this was an effective choice in presentation of the article's material.

Images are included in the article and do enhance understanding of the topic. A helpful image might be a diagram comparing the Greenland shark to other sharks side by side (to give perspective on the shark as one of the biggest shark species). Images are captioned well, and appear to adhere to Wikipedia copyright regulations. images are presented in spaced intervals, and help to better explain different aspects of Greenland sharks, from their dentation to the Inuit's use of them as a delicacy.

Many conversations express confusions and inquiries for different input on potential additions/removals; responses are given to these questions, but are sometimes difficult to follow because of spelling/typos and excessive punctuation marking. The article is rated C-Class and is part of several WikiProjects.

The Article was effective in succinct presentation of material. The article was strong in providing many different characteristics of Greenland sharks (narrative on encounter, mutualistic relationships, as a food, myth). Potentially one or two more photos, as well as a section on the origins of the Greenland shark (what it evolved from, previous differences in form/habit). The article is well developed, but would not be made worse if more was added.