User:HL01378/Evaluate an Article

Medical Entomology
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Medical entomology
 * I choose this article since I had a fond interest in the usage of insects in the medical and forensic field.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. There is no mention of the veterinary entomology involving different diseases from animals to humans. Or different research regarding how they were used.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article mention veterinary entomology and scientific research but there was no indication in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I believe it’s a little over detailed with not enough information provided later on about the topics that was mentioned.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The articles contents are relevant but there is not much details.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is research aspects for how the insects are used in the medical along. There is also a small amount of insects mentioned.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The article does not illustrate any bias.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The “medical importance”, the listed insect topics along with insect borne diseases section seems to lack a few details.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? At the time yes, but some links are not viewable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes a few does reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current? No.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? A few links do work. Others are not present.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Article is readable.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? A few sentences are not capitalized, spelling and structural mistakes present.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes it’s organized well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Includes a few, but could include more.
 * Are images well-captioned? They are captioned well but could include a bit more details.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There is one picture that is missing a copyright tag.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The pictures are laid out well but more visual aids would be helpful.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversations mention the addition of new diseases, typo mistakes, out of date links, not enough details, some additional topic titles that can be added.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is good. O it’s not part of wiki projects,
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The discussions in the talk pages is not that much differ from class. The use of providing updated articles and having an open discussion and/or debate about the future of a topic is all present and well recorded.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Good article.
 * What are the article's strengths? Provided a few details on insects and the issues it causes humans.
 * How can the article be improved? There could be few more details that can be provided. There are a few parts where the article falls flat,
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It’s a bit underdeveloped. It has the ability to expand,

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: