User:Courtney.Cameron.cac024/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: Antibiotic sensitivity testing (Antibiotic sensitivity testing)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate as I had just listened to the bacteriology and mycology lecture that spoke about bacterial susceptibility testing, and therefore thought it would be a highly relevant topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence is simply a definition for antibiotic sensitivity testing rather than briefly describing what will be discussed in the rest of the article. I would suggest adding a note about the methodologies and functions of antibiotic susceptibility testing to the introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead fails to include a brief overview of some of the latter sections (i.e. history and further research), however the rest of the major sections are included.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead contains only information that will be later expanded upon in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise, however it may expand upon the methodologies used for antimicrobial susceptibility testing more than the lead should. Instead, it should potentially include a brief overview of the functions, history, and possibilities for future research.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content contained within this article is relevant. For example, the article touches on the functions, methods, reporting standards, history and potential for future research which are all very relevant topics to antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Some content within the 'further research' section is a few years out of date and could likely be updated with more recent data to reflect the current research going on today. This could include information regarding bacterial species that have very recently acquired resistance.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, I believe that all content in the article belongs under the antibiotic sensitivity article. Other than some more recent data regarding antimicrobial susceptibility that has likely come out in the last couple of years, it seems as though all content is present in order for the general public to gain a healthy understanding of this topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article was written in a neutral tone and does not try to sway the audience to any one particular belief.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, all provided information comes across as fact and neutral and does not seem subjective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The methods section of this article is quite lengthy compared to the other sections, however this reflects the many different means to perform antimicrobial susceptibility testing. However, the article should potentially expand on the importance of susceptibility testing when it comes to preventing widespread antimicrobial resistance.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I do not feel like the authors are trying to persuade the audience to any one particular belief or position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the facts contained within the article are cited with secondary sources, including review articles and review journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, I feel the sources used reflect a decent range of available literature. This ranges from review articles, to review journals, and even to sources like the Mayo Clinic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Most sources are current within the last 5 years, however some sources are coming up on 10 years old and therefore could use an update if the related topic has seen new information available. Additionally, the section 'further research' contains information from some sources dating back to 2018. While this may seem fairly recent, I would expect that there has been much more research on antimicrobial susceptibility testing since then, and therefore this section could potentially use some more recent information and sources.
 * 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?
 * The article is fairly concise. I believe the article flows well and that the topics are in an order that logistically makes sense. For example, the article first describes the uses of antimicrobial susceptibility testing so that the audience understands what its purpose is, then continues on to state how exactly these tests are performed. Later, the article describes how these tests are used in clinical settings, and finally ends with a brief overview of the history, followed by areas of future research.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I could not explicitly see any grammatical or spelling errors contained within the article.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article's subtopics are well-defined and are organized in a manner that makes sense for this topic (see first answer under 'organization').

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, images are included in times where they aid the viewer's understanding. For instance, there are photographs that show the different methods of antimicrobial susceptibility testing to give visual support to the written portion.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, the images all have captions that briefly describe the content of the photos.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are only located in their respective sections and do not obstruct any written material.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Some of the conversations include individuals debating on whether or not to include a certain topic in this article, but ultimately deciding it would be most suitable for a separate article all together. Also, individuals discussed the potential of changing the article's name.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article is rated as a 'good article nominee'. The article is also a part of 3 WikiProjects - WikiProject Pharmacology, WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia does not expand on the vast importance of susceptibly testing to the same extent as we have in class, it simply touches on the basic methodologies and purposes that it serves.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is of 'good article nominee' quality. While the subheadings are laid out in a well-organized manner, there could be the potential to add in more up-to-date information in the 'further research' section.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is very concise when necessary (i.e. history), yet expands on topics that require more in-depth information, such as explaining how exactly these antimicrobial susceptibility tests are performed and all the different methods that could be used. Additionally, the article provides images to visually demonstrate how some of these tests are performed, which gives the audience a better chance at following along with the written content.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article could use some more updated/recent sources (regarding to current antimicrobial resistance and future research). Additionally, the introductory sentence should be expanded past a simple definition, but should also include a brief mention of the different topics that will later be brought up in the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is mostly complete, however could possibly use an additional section on antibiotic sensitivity testing relating to public safety.

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: