User:Maddiehamlin42/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Screech owl

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 am in the field of biology and have an interest in birds, and knowing information about species is important for a multiple of reasons including identification and conservation knowledge. When I clicked on the article, I assumed it would be information regarding Screech owls, which it is.

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 is clear, concise, and gives a brief and helpful overview of the article. The content is useful and relevant and feels equally balanced between parts. The article is flagged as being outdated, so information here is likely not the most up to date. The tone is neutral and the article doesn't appear to be weighted or biased in any particular direction. Some of the paragraphs do not have sources, and likely need sources to back up the information placed there. The sources come from multiple different authors and the links work. Article is clear, concise, and does not contain gramatical mistakes or confusing wording/structure. It is well organized into multiple topics breaking down the subject. The images are useful and have good captions. The images are adhering to the copyright regulations and make the page more visually appealing. There's not many conversations under the talk page, but the few comments that are there primarily discuss issues such as adding more sources or the appropriatness of the article label. The article is a part of the Wikiproject Birds. The article is strong in its organization and layout, as well as imaging and basic information. However, it lacks support through citations for many paragraphs, and also is not up to date. The article can be improved by adding more citations and re-reviewing the information to make sure everything is up to date. I'd say the article is relatively well developed but not nearly complete.