User:Eal13lanc/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: 2008 Canada listeriosis outbreak (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I decided to review this article because I've always been fascinated by outbreaks, their cause, the clean-up, and the ensuing preventative measures that are usually taken to ensure that it never happens again.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, I felt it was concise and let me know what is going to be discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Somewhat but it is not very clear in the lead part what is going to be discussed. You have to look at the contents table for that.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is pretty concise, but could definitely have some things added to it to help let the reader know more about the major sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * As far as I can tell. It was last updated 14 March 2019. However there is a suggestion to update the number of deaths that occurred so that could be outdated. As far as I could tell though when I did a quick google search and check a couple websites the numbers are up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Everything that I read belongs in the article and I couldn't pick out anything that seems to be missing for the content of the article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes. It just states the facts and only the facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * None that I could encounter.
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * I feel like it did a good job of showing the political responses in regards to the outbreak but I didn't really feel there was much of a public response other than the class-action lawsuit section.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do not think it does.

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
 * 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?
 * I felt it was well-written and provide just the facts and was easy to read and follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * I felt it was broken down well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, it had an image of the causative bacteria as well as a recall sign.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * 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?
 * There is a discussion if the word sterilize or sanitize should be used to describe the de-contamination of the factory. Also a discussion about adding more about the epidemiology on there and not leading everyone to think that all the listeria infections are because of the company Maple Leaf.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of several WikiProjects, like WikiProject Microbiology and WikiProject Disaster Management.
 * On WikiProject Micobiology it is rated low importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * N/A we haven't discussed this particular case in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * C-class
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * I think it is organized really well and is really concise to show the reader only the things they need to know. It also provides really good links to other sites/sources if they want more in-depth info.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * I think adding some view points from the Canadian citizens would be good. Currently it only shows responses from the government and the company at fault.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I feel like it is pretty well-developed but there is still a little room for improvement.

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: