User:Jg98915/Evaluate an Article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) Yes
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All content belongs
 * 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
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Np
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? None present
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No news coverage or random websites present
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Parts of the article is confusingly worded
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but additional sections are needed

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It includes one image


 * Are images well-captioned? Caption could be more detailed
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated a C-class, and is a part of the WikiProjects Medicine/Dermatology, Veterinary medicine, and Microbiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? There is not much discussion

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It is a C-class article, and should be improved
 * What are the article's strengths? The article has a form of organization with headings, uses peer-reviewed sources, and is written in an unbiased way
 * How can the article be improved? Much more information is needed, a Subheading for Microbial Cellular Structure and Function is needed, and is lacking some citations
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Which article are you evaluating?
Pasteurellosis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article, because it was listed in the Class C category of Microbiology articles. Additionally, I chose it, because it does not appear to have robust work done on it, however, there is still some work done on it to be evaluated.

Evaluate the article
This article provides a great overview of Pasteurellosis, however, I think that the information can be much more robust and organized. Here are my notes:


 * The Lead Section contains information not discussed further in the passage, such as the organism that causes pasteurellosis, as well as taxonomic information. I think that additional Headings could be added to contain this information, such as a Heading dedicated to Pasteurella multocida.
 * The Lead Section could give an overview of the other sections much better
 * I think there should be more detailed information describing the microbe responsible for the infection, such as its structure and function.
 * The Types section is lacking in citations, especially the sepsis bullet. Additionally, I think wording here gets a bit confusing.
 * Diagnosis should be more detailed.
 * Treatment lacks citations. Additionally, it seems to be cut short, as it states that it is most important to treat the wound, but does not provide further information.
 * Images could be included of infected wounds or animals