User:Briar Perkely/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 microbiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because it relates to our present field of study, Virology.

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 summarizes the purpose of the article and medical microbiology. The introductory sentences clearly introduces and define medical microbiology. The lead includes the roles of a medical microbiologist and some purposes of medical microbiology which further become some major headings within the article. The article's specific headings and sections are not mentioned. Most of the lead focuses on a medical microbiologist and their roles instead of the overall topic of medical microbiology. The rest of the article focuses on medical microbiology as whole and includes history, diseases, causes, treatments, tests, etc. The lead encapsulates the role of a medical microbiologist and includes information that is not later discussed including a medical microbiologist's education requirements. It also refers to epidemiologists which are not later discussed. The lead is concise and not too detailed but strays some from the main points of the article.

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
The article's content is relevant to the overall topic of medical microbiology. It encompasses factors such as diagnosis tests, treatments, types of microbiology, causes of diseases, transmission of diseases, common diseases, types of microorganisms, etc. The content seemed up-to-date and one of the references was written in 2020 which shows that there is some very recent information included. Medical microbiology is a very broad topic with lots of information, so of course there are things missing. This article cannot encompass every detail about this specific topic. For example, there are only some examples of commonly treated diseases and not a full list, but a full list is not necessary for a general understanding of medical microbiology. The content seems to focus on the general overview and topics of medical microbiology. All the content given provides value to the article.

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
The overall tone of the article is balance. There are no uses of the terms "think," "believe," "in my opinion," etc. The content given is factual information, and biased toward a particular position would be difficult to construe. The article appears to be balanced and does not highly focus on one viewpoint while disregarding another. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader to favor a specific position.

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
37 references are given at the end of the article. The oldest dates back to 1977 and most recent was published in 2020. Many of the sources are obtained through textbooks and journal articles which indicates that they are reliable. Each source appears to reflect on the subject of microbiology or a subcategory within microbiology. Clicking on the links does go directly to the website, article, or book.

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 article is concise, clear, and easy to read but appears sporadic. It is not set up in the most organized fashion and jumps around categories. The article does not appear to have any grammatical or spelling errors but has a sentence in the lead that is out of place. The article is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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
A few images are given that better enhance the general understanding of the topic. More images could be included, especially for the sections that do not have one included. The images are captioned, and each caption explains the purpose and meaning behind each image. Some information included in the captions may need further research to understand it more specifically. Three of the images posted were under public domain and the other was freely licensed. Both forms of images are acceptable. The images are neatly organized to the right of each section.

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
Two comments were made regarding the article. The first discusses a reference that was fixed. The other discusses the article as "being a mess" and "not being able the separate general microbiology and medical microbiology." As stated earlier, the content was easy to read but there is content missing and it is not organized in the best format in relation to the topic. The article has been rated in the C-Class and is in the scope of the WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Medicine. Wikipedia discusses this topic very vaguely. There is not a lot of detailed encompassed within the article. The class involves much more detail and better organization of content.

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 was not overall impressed with the article. It was too vague and not organized in the best manner. It does provide the general public with an overview of medical microbiology but could use some more detail and organization. To better improve the article, it needs more detail and an organization pattern going in order of events that occur. For example, begin with types of microorganisms and how they are observed in the medical setting, then move onto transmission, then testing, then treatment, and so on. Some subcategories may need to be added in between if there is more detail. The article is averagely developed. It could use more detail and focus on specific medical microbiology rather than including so much about general microbiology.

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: Talk:Medical microbiology