User:Dlu16/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 entomology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. As a person that aspires to be in the medical field (more specifically some sort of physician), I think it's important to know about the various vectors for disease. With the danger that is malaria and other insect-borne diseases, it's important for the general public to be aware of these carrier insects.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Contains a general definition of the topic, but does not really provide any important detail.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed in topics that aren't really covered in the rest of the article which primarily focuses on insect vectors and diseases

Lead evaluation
There are multiple instances of confusing wording within the first paragraph of the lead such as "finally in current situation related to one health approach mostly health policy makers recommends to widely applicability of medical entomology for disease control efficient". The way this phrase is written seems like a bunch of phrases stitched together from a variety of sources rather than a coherent description based on the author's own wording. Additionally, there are some inconsistencies in the way "medical entomologist" is written, for example: "Med. Entomologist", "Medical Entomologist", and "Medical entomologist". These inconsistencies also add to the idea that the author of the article might have stitched several sources together rather than using their own comprehensive notes. At the end of the first paragraph, there seems to be a weird "citation" with [Yonw] that is not found in any of the sources. The second and third paragraphs briefly go over the profession of a medical entomologist, but the rest of the article is about insects and diseases of interest. The lead feels very weakly organized and fairly untouched (unedited) as written.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? I believe that for the most part the content is relevant
 * Is the content up-to-date? for the most part, the data figures are from the 2000s and 2010s. However, there are sources from 1934, 1970s, and 1980s which might be out of date by today's standards
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I'm not sure where or what year some of the statistics are from in the diseases section. Additionally, there aren't any sections devoted to describing the profession, the history, or prominent figures in this field.

Content evaluation
While the content that is present is relevant to the field of medical entomology, there is a lack of details in the profession, the history, the importance, etc. in this area of study. There are comprehensive lists of major and minor insect-borne diseases, but the article oddly divides each insect into its own section. The content could benefit from combining several of these insects into one or two sections while adding a few sections on the profession, its history, and prominent experiments or studies. In terms of the writing, sometimes the vectors provided for various diseases are only mentioned by species name which may or may not have clickable links to other pages.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes (for the most part)
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Maybe in the lead
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Seems to focus more on the pathology and etiology of several insect-borne diseases rather than the whole field of medical entomology itself.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article focuses on listing information

Tone and balance evaluation
In the lead, the writers seem to praise medical entomologists as "thoughtful, efficient, best fit"; however, the rest of the article does not seem to match this wording nor this tone. This leads me to believe that various authors wrote sections after the lead. The rest of the article remains neutral.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? some
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? some
 * Are the sources current? No
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
There are a few links that do lead to the content in question, and some do seem to be thoroughly involved with medical entomology; however, others seem to be summaries of textbooks that aren't necessarily about entomology or medicine. A couple references do not have a listed ISBN number or a link. Some of these references are from 30-50 decades ago; there should be more current papers out there to describe aspects of medical entomology.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The sections are easy to read, but the lead is a mess in the first paragraph.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, several in the lead
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat, just missing content

Organization evaluation
The article has an easy to understand layout with its sections; however, The contents box is also not aligned with the left side, but rather, it's off center towards the left. I think that some of the sections can be combined, and other sections could be added in their place.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? two images
 * Are images well-captioned? sufficient enough
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? no

Images and media evaluation
The images are placed somewhat haphazardly (being on the right and left) making the text shift awkwardly. There are only two images; one was a professional medical entomologist in the navy and the other was a mosquito. I think that the captions were brief and described the picture sufficiently.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? there are some discussions on confusing wording, some edits to sources and external links, and a few additions from more recent outbreaks such as Zika.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? the article does not look like it has a rating nor is it part of a WikiProject currently
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? the way it's discussed is more of a part of a collective whole

Talk page evaluation
Due to the low traffic that this page has, most of the comments on the talk page have been merely suggestions. These suggestions are all valid, but none of the suggestions have been implemented yet. The talk page seems to focus on improving content, but no class grading or other items.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? ungraded
 * What are the article's strengths? great coverage on vectors and diseases
 * How can the article be improved? add details on the profession, rework the wording on the lead to encompass both the etiology/pathology and the profession, and add some more images of insects or medical entomologists
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say that the article is underdeveloped, but it has some details that a casual reader can get a general idea of what the topic focuses on.

Overall evaluation
There are various rough areas to fix up and edit (lots of wording inconsistencies, odd flow, and a weird balance of technical and common names). However, the base information present can provide a general idea of medical entomology to a casual observer. There are certain areas that could be added.

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 entomology