This article is a great example of fun and engaging presentation, but alas spoiled by poor writing. The top 3/4 of the article, which explains the question and makes you care about it, is clear and exciting. It's the sort of page you want to show your friends and your kids. But the ending—the explanation of the solution—falls flat. I challenge anyone to reach the end of this article with a clear understanding of what the scientists mentioned in the article actually concluded.

The problem begins with the paragraph, "What’s the link between flying and egg shape? Birds have a streamlined body plan, and—especially in stronger fliers—their organs are squashed and minimized." The paragraphs that follow this one do a poor job of explaining the model. What the author is trying to say, I think, is that the females of strong fliers, because they have narrow bodies, have narrow oviducts and therefore narrow (and pointy) eggs. That hardly seems an earth (or egg) shattering conclusion. But then we have this: "But it also turns out that egg shape is a balance between two pressures..." a sentence I can't find the significance of. And this fun fact: "If you carefully remove the shell from the membrane, an egg will still retain its shape." Does "egg" there refer to the shell, the membrane, or something else? Clearer, I think, would have been: "If you carefully remove the shell from the membrane, the remaining egg even without the shell will still retain its shape." By the end, I'm left with a cracked and mushy solution to a beautiful and pristine problem.