User:Catwood13/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Name of article: Acanthamoeba
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: Over the summer I learned that there was a teen who lost the function of his eye because of a parasite affecting entering his eye via water contact on his contact solution. As a contact wearer myself, the very slight risk worries me. I chose this parasite to better understand how I can protect myself from it.

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? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. It includes 'acanthamebiasis' but does not go into detail.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise until it mentioned that the amoebae causes a certain disease without giving more detail in the rest of the article or a source.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. The article goes into detail about where this parasite's known habitats, ecology, scientific classification, physiology, etc.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No. There was a major case during the summer of 2019 about a British man becoming blind in one eye from showering while wearing contact lenses. This brought awareness to contact wearers and shone a light to this amoeba.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Under section 'Acanthamoebic keratitis', the article mentioned then abruptly stopped writing details about a corneal infection that happened in 1985. Immediately, a paragraph about an incident in 2007 follows. It also needs to go into detail as to how people this amoeba can be contracted.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. The sources seem to be from peer-evaluated or other trusted journals.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? If possible, viewpoints from medical professionals (medical doctors, ophthalmologists, microbiologists, optometrists,etc) may give an interesting insight to this.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. They were relevant to the article and provided valuable information.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? For the most part, yes. At the end, it seemed that the author was unable to find more information about the section on giant viruses which made that part of the article choppy and seems unfinished.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do not believe so
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The author(s) broke down the article into sections that made it easy to follow and organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes for the morphology & details of the amoeba itself. A part of the article talked about the amoeba causing ulcers and sight problems to a person. They could have included pictures of that.
 * Are images well-captioned? The 2nd image about 'Acanthamoeba encephalitis ' did not give any info about the image, it just informs reader of the size/scale.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? It seems that I am not the only person who thought that the section on 'giant viruses' was lacking. An author said that it was difficult to find more information about them.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start-class rated on project's quality scale. Rated low-importance on importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It tries to lead reader to concrete sources that support the information being provided. There is no discussion about the fact's possibility to being a fact, it is what it is in that article.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Low but not important.
 * What are the article's strengths? It did a great job at creating a lead and explaining GAE.
 * How can the article be improved? Needs more info for some parts, especially when the author is trying to give more background on context but only provided the event's location and approximate time-frame.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Slightly underdeveloped. There needs to be more detail on sections and on events that it is trying to reference. It also does not seem to be completely up to date as there have been articles about people contracting this parasite in their eyes via improper contact lenses use. It also does not give any detail as to how one contracts a microbe and it's rarity to it.

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: