User:Lonetigershark/Evaluate an Article

Urban wildlife
(Provide a link to the article here.)

== As urbanization continues to encroach on traditional forest, desert, and aquatic habitats, there are an increasing number of species that are adapting to urban niches. There are many factors linked to urban wildlife - food sources, pollution, migration patterns, infectious disease transmission, and predator-prey relationships, and while I liked the information listed in the article, I feel some of these issues could be flushed out. ==

(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

== The point of view is neutral, though the language of the article is not cohesive and the structure lacks consistency (Hawaii not included in the North American section, only the European section had outdoor and indoor examples, highlighted species were random, etc.). The introduction successfully addresses the topic. All photos included are properly cited and have alternate text. References range from scientific publications to news coverage on the 'sewer monster'. Hyperlinked words and quotes take the reader to the source, and the reference material links work. Sources cited are current and the page was last edited in 2016. Suggestions for additional related information could include invasive species, disproportionate 'pest' species in minority or impoverished communities, and migratory effects (butterflies, shorebirds, etc.). Overall this is a great base for the topic of Urban Wildlife. ==

(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.)