User:Ethanstryker/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)Acinetobacter

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this topic because in another class that I am taking I have to present a case study about a medical case involving Acinetobacter. This topic is important to know and understand because this species of bacterium is found mainly in hospitals especially the ICU. It is one of the main causes of Pneumonia acquired from hospital stays.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead is well written, it is short and gives good information especially in the first sentence. The introduction could contain a little more information going over each section as there are important information discussed further along in the article that the author does not mention in the lead paragraph. There is one sentence that was not mentioned again from going over the article and could be omitted.

This article is very informative and contains a good amount of information I need if I were visiting this topic to educated myself further about this topic. An additional paragraph that could be added is the history and/or the discovery of this bacterium and the person or persons that discovered it. The majority of the references look to be written more than 5-10 years ago and an updated reference page could provide more up to date information about the topic. There is one image that looks to be a picture of the bacterium under an electron microscope. It looks to be tagged and sited well. There is not a lot of images or media that are much different from the one added but an addition of one or two more images could add a lot more depth and substance for the reader.

This article does a decent job at giving the reader information on what they need to know. I am not an expert on this topic so I am not sure if the information is correct but I do like the description, clinical significance and treatment sections and thought those were well written. The talk section does mention this article needs a major rewrite which could mean that there could be more up to date information that has been found in the last few years that yet hasn't been updated to this article