User:Alisha.alt047/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: Caseous lymphadenitis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This article was chosen because the disease caseous lymphadenitis is caused by a bacteria that infects animals. The article can be found within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary Medicine and this summer I worked alongside a veterinarian at a rural mixed animal practice to confirm caeous lymphadenitis in a couple cases.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The Lead is concise as it is composed of two sentences introducing the condition. The Lead clearly names the condition, names the bacteria that causes the condition, and describes the condition. Although the Lead does not describe the article's major sections, there is a contents section following the Lead that lists the included sections for this article. The information provided in the Lead is further discussed throughout the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation
The article's content is focused on informing the reader about caseous lymphadenitis. There has been recent edits from 2019 and 2020 to update information and resources. The article is rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale meaning it is missing important content. For example, it does not discuss herd transmission which is important to consider for this contagious condition.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes, the article remains neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article remains neutral and does not argue a particular position or attempt to persuade the reader towards one position. Viewpoints are not overrepresented or underrepresented, but this article does have limited content to evaluate tone and balance.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are citations missing in this article such as the first paragraph in the section treatment and vaccination. The sources are not thorough as an external search reveals current literature is missing from the references. Although the article has been updated recently to include two current sources, this is not comprehensive of the current literature and therefore more sources should be added. All links work but not all sources have open access for the public to evaluate.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written but the topic is is not comprehensively covered. There are grammatical errors within the article. For example, the article uses CL once to refer to caseous lymphadenitis without indicating it as an abbreviation for the term and the rest of the article uses the full term. The article is well-organized into important sections for this topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Images and media evaluation
The article includes one image but adding more images should be considered because an external image search aids in the understanding of this topic. In addition, the image does not have its own caption in the article. The reader must click on the image to obtain a description that is helpful in explaining the image. This image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations because the photographer is given credit. The one image is included near the Lead of the article which can be helpful to attract readers.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as C-class with Mid-importance. It is part of the Veterinary Medicine WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? No class discussion

Talk page evaluation
There are no conversations that have occurred for this topic. The article is rated as C-class with Mid-importance. These ratings mean the article is missing important content but the topic is interesting, useful to many readers, and notable within a specialty. The article is part of the Veterinary Medicine WikiProject. This topic has not been discussed in class, so it cannot be compared to how Wikipedia discusses the topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
This article's overall status is good because it addresses a current condition in Veterinary Medicine and would be of interest to individuals like producers. The article presents information clearly for individuals of varying backgrounds and has addressed important sections chronologically like a story of the condition. This article evaluation reveals it is underdeveloped and therefore could benefit from some improvements. Some areas of improvement would include more images and current references and additional content should be discussed like herd implications and management.

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: