User:Solarchitect03/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Acorn Woodpecker: Acorn woodpecker

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as we have recently been discussing woodpeckers in field zoology and I am currently taking ornithology. This article is important as woodpeckers are a major part of many ecosystems, but as the ranges of trees are cut down, the number of nests they can make also decreases.

The article on a first read through is lacking in many departments, mostly in the lack of sources for many of the facts they give. The language is also a little off, feeling less factual and more broad, such as when the article says "When flying, they take a few flaps of their wings and drop a foot or so.". Also, the opening paragraph is only a sentence long, which isn't enough compared to the rest of the article.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is composed of only one sentence, which only describes the length and weight of the species alongside the species name. There are no citations for the information, nothing else is written, and it does not discuss/summarize anything talked about in the article proper.

The content of the article is all related to the topic, however nearly half (9/20) of the articles predate 2000 and three articles predate 1950, so the information may not be the most up to date. Additionally, the talk page hasn't been updated since 2009. Much of the content expected to be discussed is discussed in at least one sentence of the article.

The tone and balance of the article is very good, flowing well, and not attempting to persuade the reader in any direction. No one topic is discussed in excess or isn't discussed enough.

The sources provided are from reliable sources, many coming from scientific journals or magazines with only one coming from a source like NPR, with working links. However, there is a distinct lack of sources and in-text citations. Many of the facts presented in the article are not given in text citations. Some of the papers referenced are old, two of which date back to the 1800s, but at least half of the twenty articles are as recent as 2000.

The article is well organized, being broken down into sections such as "Description" or "Behavior and Ecology". There are a few spelling and grammatical mistakes, including a capitalized word in the middle of a sentence. The article is very concise and clear in its point, not spending too much time on any one topic.

There are many pictures included in the article. They all enhance the article, providing visual aids in understanding what the article is describing. Upon clicking on the images, they seem to all be given their source, including images that are the work of the article writer. However, all except one of the images shown in the article are the work of the authors of the article, which could present a form of bias.

On the talk page, only 2 things have been posted, one in 2006 and the other in 2009. The article is rated as a C-Class article, and is apart of the Birds and Central America WikiProjects, being considered "low importance" in the Birds WikiProject.

Overall, the article is concise and well written so far, but there is much room for additions to the content and the sources provided. The article needs many more in text citations and could do with a few more sections to diversify the topics discussed inside of the article. For the information it does have, the article presents it in a cohesive and concise way that makes it easy to find any of the information one would be looking for. The article is well written so far but still needs some more development.