User:JazChapman/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Ear mite

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I am a former registered veterinary technician so I chose this topic due to my base knowledge of parasites and domestic species. I have dealt with a number of ear mite cases in my career so being able to identify false information or improperly sourced information on this topic would be fairly straightforward for me. My first impression of the article is that though a good portion of the information is relevant and true, it lacks flow, proper citations, and goes off topic quite easily and gives information that may lead to improper self diagnosis or treatment.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

·        The lead sentence is well presented though short and could use more information. The lead does not describe all of the sections to be presented in the article and does not have any citations within the lead paragraphs.

·        The lead sections is also overdetailed and most of its information should be summarized briefly and then divvied up into different content sections.

Content

·        The majority of the content is relevant, however tends to stray, in the lead they discuss humans only in the topic sentence and not at all in any content sections. Likewise, the lead discusses cats and dogs and then seems to randomly add in a section about rabbits but not on humans and the different zoonotic species of ear mites. The section on life cycle is simple and valid but could use some more detail to have it match up with the contents in the other sections. This would be a good section to add in an image of the ear mite life cycle. The mention of lesser extent of transmission in dogs is highly subjective and not true in my experience so should be followed by a citation.

·        Content is not up to date in terms of references used however is actively being edited by the wiki community and to extent does not deal with Wiki’s equity gaps as the topic is thoroughly covered elsewhere on the internet for free and many vet clinics (at least in Ontario) are happy to have a technician talk about ear mites free of charge.

Tone and Balance

·        The article feels fairly neutral however is heavily leading towards animal cases only, which is not a major issue except that the topic is “ear mites” which applies to more than cats, dogs, and rabbits so it is a bit misleading. Someone searching for ear mite information in humans may be a bit disappointed by this article.

·        Some fringe viewpoints that should have been labelled as such would be the home remedy treatments which can severely harm the ear canal or cause allergic reactions in dogs and cats. That being said, there is not true persuasion appearing in this article.

Sources and References

·        Many of the sources used are outdated such as reference 8 which is from 1997. Though the article continues to be edited up to Oct 2020, the newest reference is from 2014 and some non-primary sources such as PetsMD are used and one source (source 5) has already been flagged for unreliability. Sources such as PetsMD do not actually work and others are not direct links to the information such as source 5 which brings you to a media site. Source 8 also needs to be added to as there is not link to the information as well as source 9. Some sources are from reputable publishing and primary sources which is nice to see.

·        The sources could be more thorough, in that instead of using solely resources on specific species, more primary research on the ear mites themselves would have strengthened this article and help it flow better. There are many facts in the Lead section that are not cited and not present in the rest of the article, and even in the content sections some information is provided with no supporting citations such as the home treatment part.

Organization and Writing Quality

·        The article is not well written in my opinion, some sections are easily read and digested while others drone on, the lead section was particularly difficult to take in, especially with word choices such as “spontaneous” healing. There is some awkward sentence structure and poor grammar throughout though they did have nice flow through the treatment section.

·        The sections are lopsided, with some being small and others being larger. The treatment section is good information however the topic is on ear mites, not ear mite treatment so more attention should be given to help balance it out better.

Images and Media

·        The two images shown are relevant and have a good caption/link and are cited as own work by Joel Mills, the second does not have a pop up link however. They do enhance knowledge as they are images of common ear mites however, I would add in the magnification to the image directly for quick scale reference.

·        The images are own work so they do not violate any copyright laws and are semi-visually appealing in format, as appealing as ear mites can be that it.

Talk Page Discussions

·        First thing I noticed on the talk page is that someone named yamaplos commented that chemicals treatments are being pushed for profits by professionals, which is pushing a bias into the comments, which is a stigma of veterinary medicine that all are for profit which is not true. Also, everything is chemicals, so there is that as well.

·        This article is of interest to some Wikiprojects and rated C-Class and though there have been many edits there is not much in the Talk page occurring in terms of discussion.

Overall Impressions

·        This article has been underway since 2007 and still has a lot of improvements needed. The article does a good job of explaining signs and symptoms of ear mite infections and is thorough in its treatment section, even detailing possible adverse reactions to pesticides in certain dog breeds. Some shortcomings of the article are that it does not use enough recent sources and many sources are not appropriate or accessible. It also jumps between species from one sentence to the next and focuses too much on three commonly affected species instead of discussing ear mites themselves and also fails to address any human concerns as mentioned in the lead sentence.

·        The article feels only half complete, it does have some good components and is certainly a topic that should be found on Wikipedia, however, it needs a lot more effort put in to bring it to a higher standard.