User:Chad Zerr/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Max Wenner

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I choose this article to learn more about ornithologists. Max Wenner was an older ornithologist so his work really helped with what we know today. This article was good and had a lot of information about his life and his work.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section was good and contained all of the main points that the article talked about. The beginning sentence does not really describe what the article is about it just starts in describing what the context of the article is. The lead article is was packed with information but it is still clear and easy to read.

The content of the article is relevant to the topic and everything is up to date since there could be no new information to add after his death. There is no content that is missing or shouldn't be included. Since the cause of death is unknown and they think that there could have been some foul play by the Nazis some of the information could be considered underrepresented.

The tone and balance sounds good in this article. There is no place where the writer is biased and there is nothing that is under or over represented. There isnt a place in the article where the writer is trying to persuade the reading to have an opinion.

The sources on this article are good. It would be hard to find a peer reviewed source for a lot of the information they talk about in this article but they do have multiple sources of primary evidence for a lot of the history that they talk about. I could not find any better sources on the topic and most of the links that I clicked on worked.The article is well written and no grammar or spelling mistakes that stuck out to me. This article was an easy read and was broken up decently but they could have used a few more subheadings to divide up the information.

There was good images that helped the reader visualize a lot of the stuff they talked about however, I would have liked to see some of the pictures that Max Wenner took seeing as he was a wildlife photographer.

In the talk page there was a few good points that got fixed. One person noted that this article had contradicted itself in saying how far Mr. Wenner actually fell with one source saying 900 meters and another source saying 1,400 meters the author did edit this. Another person wrote that for this article to claim the Max Wenner was an Ornithologist was not a fair statement seeing as he only published a few articles on ornithology. This article is rated c-class in all of the categories for a WikiProject.

I enjoyed reading this article I thought that it was good overall except for a few things here and there. The article is very strong on the history of Max Wenner which is good because it is supposed to be a sort of biography however when I was lead to this article it was found under the ornithology tab even though there was very little discussion about Wenners work. I would like to see some more of what Max did during his time alive.