User:Dabbsarah19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Haemophilus influenzae

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because I find the subject material interesting.

Evaluate the article

 * The lead includes a consise and accurate introduction that decribes the articles topic.
 * There is a table of contents that lists the main sections within the article
 * All the sections and content that the article is said to contain in the table of contents is present within the body of the article
 * The author is consise and covers the topics present without providing extra irrevalent information


 * The articles content is relevant to the topic, however labels of the sections could be labeled more clearly.
 * The most recent edit was in August of 2022, the information should be up to date
 * As I mentioned before there are no major missing gaps in the information provided, however the sections could have clearer labels. The talk page mentions many sections other users wish had been inlcuded in the article. From what I can tell the information they are asking for is present within the article but in unclearly labeled sections so the information is hard to find. There are some issues within the article that do not necessarily state wrong information, but lack clarity.
 * As far as I can tell this article does not deal with one of Wikipedias equity gaps


 * The article is neutral, there is no indication of voice beyond presenting the information about the topic.
 * There may be bias in that it does seem the author focused more heavily on topics that they found most interesting rather than giving a broad overview of the entire topic.
 * As mentioned before, the particular interests of the author concerning the topic seem to be more represented. The other information is present, but less detailed explanations of the topics are written for these topics.
 * There are no fringe or minority viewpoints within this article
 * There is no persuasive elements within this article, merely a stronger focus on certain topics.


 * Yes, all sources used are either from a scientific journal, the WHO, or the CDC
 * Sources are a through and broad sampling of the literature available on the topic
 * All sources seem to be adequate sources of the current information we have on the topic.
 * Yes, there are internationally published sources among the references used for this article
 * The majority of the sources are either from academic journals (which are generally peer reviewed)
 * The links work


 * The articles writing style is concise, however it is a little difficult to understand and lacks flow.
 * No obvious grammatical or spelling errors
 * Sections reflect major topics, however the body in some of the sections lack clarity.


 * Any images provide reference for what the article is talking about, however the captions lack clarity.
 * Images are captioned however not clearly enough to avoid confusion within the talk page. The caption "blood agar" is to broad and needs to be more specifc.
 * Images are not captioned with photographer or owner credits, merely what the images are depicting
 * Images are adequately laid out, they neither visually add nor detract the articles aesthetic appeal.


 * Within the talk page many users discuss the sections they feel would be beneficial to add, for example, one user would like more information concerning antibiotics and another would like more detail about vaccines available for treatment of the bacteria
 * This article is rate as a C-Class article and is part of the WikiProject Medicine
 * This article does touch on the physiology of the bacteria, however its main focus is medicine and how this bacteria is important in a medical environment. Generally these topics are touched on briefly in classes but not focused on unless the class is specifically for the medical side of bacteria.


 * I would say this articles rating is accurate. It is an adequate place to get a general overview of the topic.
 * It has a strong focus on medicine and is has some helpful inforamation in that regard.
 * A shortcoming within this article is, as I previously mentioned, that the sections are poorly labeled and those reading and even editing this article cant seem to find information within the article. There are instances of the text lacking clarity.
 * I would say this article is slightly underdeveloped and could use some revising in order to make it well-developed.~