User:Graemebeatie/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 resistance in gonorrhea)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. These mutations that lead to the change in antibiotic resistance is based off of concepts discussed in lecture.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is a concisely worded intro
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it has a two paragraph summary of all antibiotics covered.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? They do not discuss the horizontal gene transfer mechanisms that are mentioned.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It provides a short summary of the trends in antibiotic resistance for gonorrhea.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the content is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content up-to-date? There is only one citation from the last five years but most of the article is about the history of the development of resistance so that seems up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a brief mention of horizontal gene transfer which could've been valuable background information. But the article is about the antibiotic resistance so I understand why they focused primarily on which antibiotics they were resistant to rather they how they gained the resistance.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, this is a neutral summary of the the history of the antibiotic resistance of N. gonorrhea
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No it does not.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it is just gives a timeline

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, they are all from either peer-reviewed journals or public statements from government institutions.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there are many references from both scientific research and historical research.
 * Are the sources current? No, only one reference is from the past five years. So this article may not be up to date
 * Check a few links. Do they work? I checked a few and they all work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. it only gives relevant information to the topic.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that I can pick out.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? yes they are well-captioned
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes they were all public domain images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes the placement is alright.

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 small discussion about whether there is an increase in sexual activity or about super-gonorrhhea.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-rated in microbiology, medicine, and project articles
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? This article also mentions the historical prevalence of the disease which we do not.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good
 * What are the article's strengths? The neutral viewpoints and effective summarizing of the issue
 * How can the article be improved? Adding more up to date information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It seems well developed for how niche of a topic it is.

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: