User:NoahKealii/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Oʻahu ʻamakihi

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 chose to evaluate this article because it relates to our course and it's a species that's endemic to Hawaii. This article matters because it's important to catalog the flora and fauna of the places that we call home, especially when said flora or fauna is threatened with extinction. Right off the bat, I can see that the article is humble in terms of quantity, which is understandable since there is not much information on many animal species endemic to Hawaii.

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.)

This article has a good lead section overall, it is concise and gives a brief overview of the species it discusses. However, it does not give a brief description of the rest of the article's major sections. The article's content is definitely relevant to the topic it discusses, and I would say that the content is as up to date as it can be. The article definitely covers a topic that is not usually represented or well-known. The article is definitely neutral, and does not seem to show any sort of bias or point of view. Upon further examination, it seems as if the link to the second reference listed below the article does not work. Other than that, every other reference link works and the sources are relevant and up to date. The article is decently written, however I do think that it could use some more improvement in terms of writing quality. Also, the article definitely needs more sources as a lot of facts are missing citations that should otherwise be present. There is only one image present in the article, but the image used is of good quality and is relevant to the subject matter. Perhaps, the article could use one or two more images to give a better visual to its readers. There is no content within the article's talk page.