User:Ashley.milne/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: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article as it is relevant to bacteriology in that ẞ-lactams are the most important superfamily of antimicrobials.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does introduce the subject concisely -- it is a antibiotic and why it is called a beta-lactam (due to its structure). The Lead did not include a brief description of all of the major sections. For example, the Medical use section briefly and vaguely mentions what type of organisms the antibiotic is used for, which the Lead fails to mention (e.g. Gram negative or Positive antibiotic), and the Adverse effects section is not mentioned in the Lead. It may be useful to have what types of organisms these drugs are useful for, such as Gram negative and Positive, and even some common types of infections so readers can quickly determine if the article is relevant to any diseases that they are interested in. The Lead also includes information that is not present in the article. There is no section on economics of the drug, and it is not clear whether this is necessary or relevant information to the topic since it is not mentioned further in the article. There is also no history section of the drugs, which could also be added to the article if they are going to mention the first beta-lactam discovered.The Lead does do a good job of being concise, it just needs to shed unnecessary information, or try to mention at least one thing from each major section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
Some content should be updated. For example, under Medical use, there should be more information about the classes of beta-lactams and the most susceptible organisms to those different drugs. It needs to be noted this is a superfamily of drugs, so all the drugs in the family should be classed, and their uses differentiated. If there is also mention of antibiotic/inhibitor combinations in the Lead, there should be an updated section going over at least some medically relevant combinations to make the article more complete and up-to-date, instead of just mentioned under Modes of Resistance. These could be two separate major sections altogether.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
There are some sections that seem to make claims without reference. In the Allergy/hypersensitivity section: "There is perhaps a 5–10% cross-sensitivity between penicillin-derivatives, cephalosporins, and carbapenems; but this figure has been challenged by various investigators.

Nevertheless, the risk of cross-reactivity is sufficient to warrant the contraindication of all β-lactam antibiotics in patients with a history of severe allergic reactions (urticaria, anaphylaxis, interstitial nephritis) to any β-lactam antibiotic.

A Jarisch–Herxheimer reaction may occur after initial treatment of a spirochetal infection such as syphilis with a β-lactam antibiotic." There could be bias here from the writer, and a reference to a review article on these findings could support this. But for now, this should be taken out.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all sources of information is backed up, as previously mentioned under tone and balance evaluation, there are claims made without citations. Also some sections like Medical use do not give citation at all for the section. The links do work, some sources are from 2020, so they are current, and of the ones I clicked, they are all from secondary sources, and reviews. If they were to add citations to sections that are missing them, the article could be stronger.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The page is free from any notable errors. The writer is concise in what they write, their major flaw is in the organization of the content. In my opinion, there should be a major section breaking down the drugs of the superfamily and the organisms they have an effect on. That could come after mechanism of action which would make sense to come first, and then medical use and adverse effects. It would make sense to organize the major sections like this, as you want to start with describing the topic first, which are the major drug types of the beta-lactams and how they work.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
Images do enhance understanding and are laid out in a way that makes sense and is visually appealing. There are citations when work is not of the author, and appear to fall under fair-use as it is from a textbook and presented for educational purposes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page only seems to have comments regarding format of pictures and charts. That seems to be where they have improved most upon the article. The article is part of 3 WikiProjects, all Class C, and of Top-importance for Pharmacology and Microbiology, Mid-Importance for Medicine. I noticed the big difference in how we talk about beta-lactams is we go way more in depth into the different types of beta-lactams and the organisms they effect.

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
I think the overall status would be incomplete, as it is rated C-class and needs more information. The article's strengths are the author's ability to write concisely and use of images that help educate the reader. But the article could be improved by adding major sections and adding a bit more relevant detail/cutting random irrelevant details (specifically in the Lead). I think the article overall is underdeveloped, there are many questions I still have about beta-lactam antibiotics after I have read their article as well as questions where to read more about the information written for some sections.

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: