User:Yadukulakambhoji/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Adult neurogenesis in songbirds

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is relevant to ecological physiology and seemed interesting. It is about the ways in which songbirds gain knowledge in adulthood.

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.)


 * In genera, the article was well put together and easy to follow. The article started off strong. The lead began with an explanation of the idea of neurogenesis rather than the article as whole, which helped with understanding the rest of the article. The lead contained a brief description of the various sections within the article. The lead was concise and all of it was expanded on in the rest of the article.
 * The article's content appeared to be wholly relevant to the subject matter. Very little of the article was based on recent publications and some of it was based on review articles. There was no missing content or content which was irrelevant as far as I can tell. The article does appear to be neutral and unbiased, but there are so few sources that it is difficult to tell what is readily accepted by the scientific community and what is a fringe theory. The article makes no such discernments itself. The article does not appear to make any attempts to dissuade the reader from certain lines of thinking
 * The article derives all of its sources from peer-reviewed literature. There are certain claims that have been flagged as [citation needed], including a bold claim in the very last sentence. The sources appear to be thorough, though there are very few sources in general. Also a few of the sources are reviews rather than primary literature. Only one of the sources were published in the last 5 years. The links I checked work, though not all the citations have links.
 * The article is well written, though it is dense. I noticed no grammatical or spelling errors. To my eyes the article is well organized, though it has been flagged as needing additional, more specific categories to make it easier to compare to other articles on similar subjects. I would note that there are a few major categories with myriad subcategories and it may make more sense to rearrange the article with more categories with fewer subcategories. The article does include pictures. The images are mostly well captioned, though a few figures might be aided by more explanation.
 * There are no conversations about this article, however the article is part of wiki-project birds. It is rated as B quality and low importance.
 * The article is overall rather strong. The article could do with a bit of rearranging to make it easier to follow. The article should also have more sources and take special care to include sources which support [citation needed] claims and sources from the last five years as applicable. The article seems fairly thorough.