User:Andrew LeFevre/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
 * I chose this article because I am interested and fascinated by medicine and I do not have a good grasp about what entomology so I thought it would be a good place to start.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does a good job of starting off this article and allowing the introduction paragraph push the reader through the article. It gives a good description about what medical entomology is and why it is important. I feel that it is very concise and to the point and contains some information that is not in the below article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

All the information in the article seems like it is relevant to the and it does not stray away from the topic at all. And the information is up to date, last being updated on May 10th, 2020. I do not believe that there is content that should not be there.


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

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article seems neutral, the stance seems very middle ground and only focused on giving the facts of medical entomology. I truly do not believe that there is anything in this article that is trying to get me to sway to one side more than another.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The article has a range of working external sources from different years, which I like. I have the ability to go through those and search for more information on the topic from other sources which is good. From what I saw the links are through with the available literature at hand. Overall, the external links provided on the article are good.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

This is a well written article that is very to the point with clear, cut facts about medical entomology. It was very easy to read and did not confuse me at all. Organization was good, had the breakdown of different arthropods by sections with examples of each with how they play into medical entomology.


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

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

It contains two images, one of a Aedes Albopictus and another of a man looking into a microscope. These images are well placed and I feel like they give a good balance in the article. Too many pictures and the article seems drowned out. And it seems that the images do adhere to the wikipedia's copyright regulations.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversations in the talk page seem very focused on improving the article by discussing changes that could be made to it.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Overall, I really like this article. I feel that it was written nicely and got the information about medical entomology across to the reader in a manner that works for all, that I like. The talk page was civil and seemed like the people in it were wanting to help rather than get ahead of each other. I think maybe some more information could be added, because the field is changing always. However, this is a good article with good information that anybody could read and understand.


 * 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?

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: