User:LialaOkami

Bio

Hello! I'm Andromeda, a nonbinary being that doesn't really identify as a human but as more of a cryptid - so any terminology and behaviors you can use in regards to me to make me seem less human are much appreciated! Something I'm trying to get more open about is the fact that I have dissociative identity disorder, a mental condition that results in someone having multiple people in their brain/sharing a body. I'm an artist and special in creature design, especially in relation to animals I'm interested in. Speaking of which, I adore animals just in general but am especially fascinated with reptiles, snakes in particular.

Wikipedia Interests

Like I just stated, I am incredibly interested in reptiles, so if I end up doing any editing here on Wikipedia it will likely be on reptiles that have missing/incorrect data that I know enough about to correct! I may also dip into some folkloric pages or other animals. And don't assume that by "animals" I exclusively mean ones that are extant! Some of my favorite organisms have been extinct almost since the dawn of life!

Article Evaluation

I decided that for the article I was to evaluate, it should definitely be an animal. And since I've been particularly interested in arthropods recently, I chose the page for the order of tailless whip scorpions. So, I visited the amblypygi article on Wikipedia, and found three aspects of it worth commenting on: a lack of citations, several links are dead, and the "as pets" section isn't entirely relevant.

Citations

While there are quite a few citations (sixteen) on the page, there don't seem to be enough of them and many facts are uncited. The entire first paragraph has no citations whatsoever, despite having numerous points that are not later cited in the article. Additionally, the same citation (number two) is used five times. While it is seemingly a very good source, it feels like this is an opening for potential bias or lack of enough documented information. More sources should be looked at and cited here to help verify the information.

Dead Links

Three of the citations used were either unclickable (number five), or lead to dead pages saying that the link could not be found (numbers 8 and 13). Aside from citations, a simple glance at the article shows a wide array of red links that lead to nowhere. Either these linked terms should have pages created for them to provide that information, or they simply shouldn't be linked.

Relevancy

While I am personally enthused by the "As pets" section, given that I am an exotic pet enthusiast and have an interest in this species, I feel like it is unnecessary. There are plenty of articles on other animals in Wikipedia that are kept in the pet trade that don't have anything to say on their existence in said trade, much less include a partial care guide like the amblypygi has included. As much as I appreciate the detail it goes into for the husbandry of this animals, I fail to see how it's a necessary addition to the article.

Conclusion

As a summary, while it seems like this article has good information on it, the citations need some work and those dead links should be fixed. I think it'd also be beneficial for the extraneous sections to be pruned if feasible.