User:Hbnepal01/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Keratitis

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 choose this article because the name kind of stood out to me. This article talks about the eye and it matters because eyes play a big role in our daily life. I feel like the article is not detailed enough. It has bare minimum information and can have more stuff added to have better understanding on the topic. Also a lot of the sources need to be verified.

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 article starts out with defining what Keratitis is, and goes on to listing classification in different sections. For example it lists out type of Keratitis a person can have, different types of ways it can be caused, whether it's through infections or environmental issues. It also has it's own section for treatment, prognosis, and Keratitis seen in non-humans. In the beginning, it did defines it very well but lacks to provide description on the major topics. The lead isn't very detailed.

The article did a good job on staying on topic, it does not go off topic or talk about things that are irrelevant. The article was last updated and edited on August 22, 2022 at 04:24. Although the article was updated recently, the content does not seem to be up to date because the sources used were back from 2007. The closet source used close to now was in 2014. All the content and sections in the article are relevant and fit the topic.

This article remains neutral, since it's about a medical condition I feel like there wasn't any room to be bias. It is pretty straight forward. If anything the topic needs more research and more details. There are many things that are listed but barely any explanation for it.

The article is simple, and easy to read but I wouldn't say it is well written. It lacks a lot of details and explanation. The article is laid out very well, it is broken down into different sections. The grammars and spelling are accurate.

There are many sources used but a few do not work. The work is cited and backs up the topic.

The images provide a good visual to get a sense of what Keratitis might look like. Along with the pictures they have a caption that goes with it. It makes it possible to see what different types of the condition looks like.

It is rated start class and mid-importance, and is supported by the ophthalmology task force. On the talk page there are a few discussions, but it isn't really about the topic expect or one. The one discussion about the topic talked about was how Keratitis inflammation and infection are two different things, but the article mentioned that was was same and they just wanted those topics to be more clear. The rest on the discussions were just about the sources being updated.

Overall, the article has a good layout but lacks on details. Some of the sources do not work. It is under developed and need more work done.