User:Elphabajm/Evaluate an Article
Which article are you evaluating?
[edit]Northern Saw-Whet Owl
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_saw-whet_owl#Description
Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
[edit]I chose this article because I had never heard of this species of owl before and found it intriguing.
Evaluate the article
[edit]Lead section
The lead section provides a clear and succinct description of the subject. There’s no description of the major sections but there’s a table of contents with links to the sections. All the information in the lead section is in the article. It is a very concise introduction, but it could use some more information and better writing.
Content
The article content is relevant to the topic as a whole, but some of the information could be considered “outdated”. There is a note at the last section (Pop culture) that says the information may not be important or relevant, seeing as most of the references used were dated before 2020. The content itself could definitely serve to be a little more dense; a lot of the sections feel like they are lacking. Points are made but not expounded upon.
Tone and Balance
The article content is not persuasive and doesn’t seem to sway one way or another.
Sources and References
The article does have sources attached that correspond with the information in the text and from a variety of authors. However, some of the links don’t work, and some are of little-to-no importance. The sources provide some good core information, but it could use an update. There are some sections that still need citations attached.
Organization and writing quality
The writing in this article seems a bit juvenile compared to other Wikipedia articles I’ve seen. The writer kind of moves from one point to the next without expounding upon the point they just made. That would give each section more meat and help the lack of flow. The pictures are good and they contribute to the information in the article. They are well captioned, but they need reference links to the website where they got their images from.
Talk page discussion
This article is rated “start-class” despite being started in 2008. The article is a part of “WikiProject Birds” and has been deemed “low importance.” That could be a reason why the article is so choppy. There are a couple comments on the talk page from a couple months ago, but the last significant comment made was 8 years ago (2017).
Overall impressions
The article’s overall status in my opinion is just mediocre. There is still interesting and important information being presented but I feel as though it is lacking/underdeveloped in many areas.To improve this article, any editors should dig a bit deeper for better concrete sources that are still relevant.