User:Pook21/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hummingbird

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because we had discussed hummingbirds in class with regards to their high metabolism. This article matters in order to better understand the physiology and history of this unique bird in comparison with other species. My first impression of this article was that it was very well organized and the images of the beautiful birds drew my attention in to read further.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section:


 * the lead section for this article identifies the topic of the article in an efficient manner in the first sentence that is easy to understand.
 * There is a content section included within the lead section of this article that lists the different topic sections, but no significant description of these sections are provided without actually going to the section itself.
 * the lead only contains information that is included in the article.
 * the lead contains a sufficient amount of detail without being overwhelming.

Content:


 * All of the content contained in this article was relevant to hummingbirds.
 * The content of this article appeared to be up to date, with most sources including information within the last 5-8 years. A few sources included were slightly older around 20 years old, but with an article on a subject that does not change rapidly such as hummingbirds I think it is acceptable to have some slightly older information included.
 * I did not think any content was missing from the article, and everything discussed seemed relevant to the topic. There was a short section at the end of the article about hummingbirds in myth and in culture, but I would say this is still relevant to this topic and thus belongs in this article.
 * The only historically underrepresented topics that this article seemed to mention was the section at the end of the article on hummingbirds in culture. This section mentioned the history of the Aztecs, as well as Hopi and Zuni culture which I would consider underrepresented topics in most literature.

Tone and Balance:


 * The tone of this article was neutral and did not include any biased viewpoints on the content.
 * There was no evidence of heavily biased claims in this article, all information was displayed in a factual and neutral style.
 * There were no over or underrepresented claims made in this article. The facts included were stated clearly but not fixated on or brushed over in any way. The topic of hummingbirds is not very controversial, so claims are easily backed up by evidence rather than opinion.
 * There were no minority or fringe viewpoints identified in this article.
 * This article did not attempt to persuade the reader in any way. This article simply stated facts and truthful information about hummingbirds as a neutral information source without any underlying agenda or viewpoints.

Sources and References:


 * The facts included in this article were all provided with a source. When I checked these sources, they all seemed to be from reliable, well-known journals for reputable information.
 * The sources included in this article were very thorough and reflected what was mentioned in the article.
 * The average age of the sources used fell within the 5-8 year range (2013-2016). Based on what is considered to be a "current" source, I would say that anything within the last 10 years would be considered current. There were a few older sources from around 20 years old, which may be considered slightly outdated. However, a topic such as hummingbirds does not change extremely rapidly so I would say that information taken from 2000 about the topic is likely still relevant today and therefore is appropriate in the article.
 * The authors of the sources included in this article were from a wide variety of different backgrounds including Canada, Germany, Japan, and the USA, along with many other backgrounds.
 * I would say that the sources included were excellent and I don't think you would be able to find many better sources. A lot of the sources came from the NCBI database which is very reputable, as well as from several Biology journals that had a high impact factor.
 * I tried several of the links included in the article and they all directed me to the relevant page.

Organization and Writing Quality:


 * The article was well written in a fashion that was both engaging and clear.
 * The article was lacking in grammar and spelling errors, I could not find any as I read through the article several times.
 * The organization of this article made sense, beginning with the history of evolution of hummingbirds moving into some physiological functions which arranged the article in a logical fashion.

Images and Media:


 * There were many images included in this article, most of which enhanced my understanding of the topic. There were some sections that had many pictures, perhaps a few too many that took away from the value of using an image in some cases.
 * The images were captioned in a way that was intriguing and was logical in its placement in the article.
 * There was one image that was discussed in the talk page that did not properly adhere to the fair use policy. The photograph appears to have since been deleted. All other images appear to abide by copyright rules, with appropriate sources included. Many of the images included in the article are the user's original work.
 * The images were laid out in a satisfactory way, with images pertinent to certain topics being included in the relevant sections of the article. My only recommendation may be to include more photos within the text rather than including many additional images in the gallery at the end.

Talk Page Discussion:


 * Some of the discussion on the talk page for this article seemed slightly rude and hostile at times. Some users were upset that their addition to the article was altered or removed. Aside from this, the talk page seemed to include useful conversation and fact-checking others potential contributions to the article. One user discussed the abundance of photographs included in the article, and constructively worked with other users to determine which images were most relevant and best included in the article.
 * This article is rated as a B-Class article as a level-4 vital article in Biology. It is part of the WikiProject Birds.
 * This article provides significantly more detail than we have discussed in class. Hummingbirds were only briefly mentioned with respect to their wing speed and extremely high metabolism in class. This article went into much more depth, describing the history and many other physiological features of this bird.

Overall Impressions:


 * I would say that the overall status of this article is fairly well done. I found it enjoyable and educational to read, and the sources included appeared to be reliable and well chosen. The article includes many facts about the topic that are presented in a logical and neutral fashion, along with images to enhance understanding. I also enjoyed the small section at the end about hummingbirds in culture; I always find it interesting to see how animals are integrated into our own lives and what they represent to certain communities.
 * Some strengths of this article I thought were the extensive detail included in the actual physiology of the bird. There was a significant portion of this article dedicated to topics such as wing speed, metabolism, vision, as well as other bodily processes that make hummingbirds unique and able to be successful. I also really appreciated the layout of this article, beginning with the evolutionary history of the bird before moving into some of the physical features and behavioural characteristics. It made logical sense to read through it in this order and helped my understanding of the topic. Lastly, the images that were embedded within the article were really helpful and interesting, and helped solidify my conceptual understanding of certain topics.
 * Improvements of this article may include reorganizing images to integrate them into certain sections throughout the article rather than having a large gallery at the end. There was a significant part of the article that was just text, and it might break up some of the reading by integrating more images. I might also recommend the lead of the article providing slightly more information on the contents within the article. There is also one slightly awkward section under "Bill evolution" that is very short regarding a specific species of hummingbird. I would recommend perhaps integrating this information into a larger section rather than providing such a short section of its own.
 * This article seemed fairly complete to me, as I read it I did not think any information was missing from it. However, I am not a hummingbird expert and considering the article is only rated as B-Class, perhaps those more experienced in this field would think that there is more information to include. Of the information that is present in this article, it seems to be very thorough and well developed in a complete manner. I enjoyed reading this article and I learned a few new things about one of my favourite summertime birds.