User:AnonymousSphinx/Evaluate an Article
 | Evaluate an article
Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider: Lead sectionA good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.
ContentA good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.
Tone and BalanceWikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.
Sources and ReferencesA Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.
Organization and writing qualityThe writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.
Images and Media
Talk page discussionThe article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.
Overall impressions
Examples of good feedbackA good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. |
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]This article is on a subject of my research on UNCP's campus and needs work on it as it is very short and not very organized.
Evaluate the article
[edit]The article overall contains a good base on information on the Brown-headed nuthatch, however it primarily needs organization.
The statements on the Bahama Nuthatch were a bit confusing as it was hard to tell when the article was meaning the Brown-headed Nuthatch and when it meant the Bahama nuthatch. This segment comparing the two species should have its own section as to not distract from the base, introductory information.
The information doesn't appear out of date, but can certainly be expanded on. When compared to the White-breasted nuthatch article, the Brown-headed is lacking. The overall page needs organization with sections for behaviors, taxonomy, habitat, and conservation/population status. More information is needed to create and fill out the beforementioned sections.
The article is written neutral from what I can observe and doesn't appear to be over or underrepresenting viewpoints.
The links within the article and the reference links appear to work when accessing them. The references are primarily a collection of scientific articles from a variety of authors and sites, with some repeats in the authorship for those with multiple relevant papers, supporting reliability with trustworthy and notable scientists without having too much bias in overrepresenting one author. The sources appear to be neutral and are sources primarily dedicated to scientific progression and education.
The talk page is almost bare, with the only notes, aside from the article being assigned to me, being that the page is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean as well as supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean/Turks and Caicos Islands work group. Both projects rate the article as start class and give it a low-importance rating. No comments have been made yet at this time.