User:Alex Cuet/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (Medical entomology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * The article was related to medicine, and entomology also interests me.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introduction is clear, concise, and describes the subject of interest of the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the article gives a quick overview of the subtopics described.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the Lead describes the career paths of Medical Entomologists, along with their role in society.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * All of the article's content is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some sources used date back to the late 1970s and late 1980s. The content may be outdated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content in the article that does not belong. However, a subsection relating to the career paths and training to be a Medical Entomologist could have been included, as well as more details on insects that cause diseases and the research methods used.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article does not deal with any equity gaps or represent underrepresented populations or topics. The article is focused primarily on insects and the diseases they can transmit to humans.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral in its tone throughout.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims based on any particular position, the article focuses on describing known relationships between various insects and pathogens.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are no viewpoints that are under or over represented within this article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article does not attempt to persuade the reader into any position, it only states known facts.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Every fact stated in the article is backed up links to reliable sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While the article is brief, the sources are through and reflect available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are rather old, the most recent reference dating to 2008. The article could use an update with more current sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links given in the article are functional.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is very well written, it is easy and quick to read, as well as concise in describing its facts.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There is a single capitalization error. Otherwise, there are no flaws in the article's grammar or spelling
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is well organized into sections describing important insects and pathogens.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article does not contain many images. The images given to aid the understanding of the article, but more images could be used.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images given are well-captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images given adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images are placed at the lead of the article. The layout is visually appealing.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * In the talk page, there are suggestions on how to make the article more concise, and to add more details, as well as more recent sources.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * There is no rating on the article, but many of the commentators compliment its neutral tone and concision. The article is not part of any WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia article states various related facts on a topic, and has suggestions on how to improve upon the article with more details and ideas for room to expand. It is similar to the way topic discussion was done in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article has a strong status, with some room for improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are its concision and neutral tone.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use much more detail, discuss more about insects and their uses or pathogens, and include more current sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well structured, its lack of detail and breadth makes the article seem underdeveloped. However, the article is still strong and has great potential if expanded upon.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: