User:Sgran747/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Reverse migration (birds)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
In order to assess an article, I looked for one that was initially intriguing, related to the Field Ecology course I am taking, and seemed to have at least one area where it might be improved.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

Everything that the leading questions seemed to indicate is needed seems to be covered in the first paragraph. An grasp of what reverse migration is from the first sentence alone would save the reader from having to read any further. What topics will be discussed later in the article are not specified in the lead paragraph. The subject line is succinct and not excessively descriptive.

Content

The title of the article is deceptive because the content primarily discusses reverse migration trends. It would be expected that the real features, which is a heading, would be explained based on the information the researchers learned from the fossils rather than just talking about the sorts of species. It appears like the information is current. The fact that this page focuses mostly on different bird species despite the title not indicating that this is the topic would be considered missing material. There is a brief summary of the species' features, including its habitat and period of existence.

Tone and Balance

The writing style is objective, and there are no overt attempts to persuade the reader of any one viewpoint. There are just facts offered on the subject.

Sources and References

For the information in the article, the sources are reliable. Given that the links are active and direct viewers to the provided article, they indeed reflect the body of knowledge that is currently available on the subject. One of the sources for this article is current; others date back more than 20 years. The articles continue to provide accurate information on the subject. It is possible to find more publications on the subject, which would certainly be a helpful contribution even if merely to support the sources that are currently cited.

Organization and Quality

Although the post may be condensed down into simpler language for easy reading and comprehension, it is effectively written. The article is free of obvious grammar and spelling errors. Although it is quite well ordered, the header does not seem to match the message that is being sent by the material beneath that title. It may be necessary to modify this heading to something more relevant to the body paragraphs below it.

Images and Media

There are a few images, but no media in this article

Talk Page Discussion

There is just one discussion of the phrasing that appears to contradict itself in either paragraph on the Talk Page. Despite the fact that this phrase refers to size and expresses the same thing, it seems to the observer to be unclear. This article's status in the two WikiProjects it pertains to—Birds and Field migration—is "start-class" and "low-importance."

Overall Impressions

The article's strength would be that it is brief and delivers merely the facts, not trying to influence the reader's perspective in any manner. Rephrasing a few of the body paragraph's most repetitive or confusing passages might help the article. It might also be better organized, as the headings aren't really relevant to the body and the general appearance isn't particularly appealing. The article's attractiveness would be significantly boosted by the inclusion of visuals. This essay, in my opinion, is neither thorough nor well-developed. It might be expanded upon and improved upon in the ways mentioned above. These additions might be made in more articles/sources, which would make the article more comprehensive as a whole.