User:Grayzacc/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Flying and gliding animals

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I wanted to pick a topic related to animals, since I tend to find those interesting, and this one stood out to me! I typically read articles like this in my free time, just for fun, but I had never seen this one before!

Lead section:
The content is relevant, mostly concise, and goes into an overview of the rest of the article. The details about gliding are perhaps unnecessary. While flight is not given a use for it in evolution, gliding is given one on two separate occasions - once overall, and once specifically for aquatic animals, reptiles, and amphibians. This seems a little unneeded, especially considering the lack of clarification given to flying. To be specific, it could be cut down to just the listed variety of organisms that gliding has appeared in.

Content:
The content is up to date (using information from as recently as 2020), all relevant, and well organized. The inclusion of humans as a "flying animal" seems a little silly, however, and while it is not exactly incorrect, it doesn't exactly fit in with the rest of the content.

Tone and balance:
The tone is neutral, presenting factual information about different forms of flying and gliding within animal species, and a reasonable history of it as well.

Sources and references:
The sources currently in the article are good, established, and diverse sources. Some of the sources are as recent as 2016-2020, so it is still being updated with recent information. They link to active sites and reliable sources. However, as it states at the top of the article, there is a lack of sources. Many statements within the article are unsourced and require a source.

Organization and writing quality:
The article is well-organized and the writing is good quality, informative, and easy to digest.

Images and media:
Overall, images are well-organized, helpful, and well-captioned. The image comparing Quetzalcoatlus northropi to a Cessna 172 light aircraft is questionable in its purpose and seems unnecessary. The image of the airborne squirrel is somewhat blurry and low quality and likely could be replaced with a better image. A few of the images have unclear licensing or sourcing. The source link for the photo of the bee in flight is broken. The author of the photo of the Townsends's big-eared-bat is unknown and instead links to a national park website. There is no author information for the pterosaur image. The image of the volaticotherid credits the user who published the image to Wikipedia as the artist, however clicking the option for more details lists the actual artist under permissions.

Talk page discussion:
Discussions are focused on sources or lack-thereof, different animals and if they fit criteria, and such. It is part of the WikiProjects for animals and for biophysics (biophysics is inactive, however). Discussions do seem limited and infrequent, though growing in frequency over time.

Overall impressions:
The article is overall good. However, it is lacking in sources and needs updated sources. The images should also be looked into. It is well-developed, but a bit lacking in the previously mentioned ways.