User:Jpaul082/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: (link) Medical entomology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because I am interested in the medical field, and would like to see how insects play a role in medicine and human health.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead does have an introductory sentence that describes the article's topic by providing an appropriate and descriptive definition of medical entomology. The Lead does not have a brief description of the article's major sections, but instead focuses on describing medical entomology and medical entomologists. In the Lead, it includes information regarding medical entomologists and where they are employed, however medical entomologists are not mentioned again in the content of the article. I think the Lead may be overly detailed and wordy. This makes it hard to retain the audience's attention.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

I do think that the content is relevant to the topic at hand. Each section describes a particular type of insect or critter that affects human health in one way or another. While there are references that are as recent as 2018 used in this article, there are some references that date back to 1934. However, the majority of the information presented does appear to be up-to-date. Some information that I think was missing was more information on medical entomology and medical entomologists. How and when did the field come about? Also the medical entomologists were mentioned in the Lead, but were not mentioned again in the content of the article. What exactly do they research and what tools are used in their studies?


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

I believe that the article is neutral and does not try to stray away from facts. There are not any claims that appear heavily based toward a particular position; this article was really straightforward. I do not think there are any over or underrepresented viewpoints in regards to this article. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over the other, it just describes what medical entomology is and lists insects that do affect human health.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

I noticed that only the second subsection of "Personal Pets" was properly cited, while the other subsections did not contain any citations. The sources do appear thorough and informative on the insects mentioned as well as medical entomology as a whole. Some of the sources are current dating to 2018, while some are very old and date back to 1934. I have clicked on a couple links, and the links I clicked on were working.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I think the Lead was a little overly detailed, but the remainder of the article was clear and concise and easy to read and understand. I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors in this article. I do think that the overall article is well organized, but again I believe that it is missing some major points that should be discussed about medical entomology.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

I think that the navy medical entomologist image is beneficial to the article since it describes what he is doing and is related to the article. However, the image of the insect does not enhance the understanding of the topic since the description is not well thought-out and the image itself is very loosely related to the article. The caption for the medical entomologist image is good since it describes what he is doing and it relates to the article. The caption for the insect image does name the insect in the image, however I think a better suited image and caption would be an insect biting or infecting a human being since medical entomology is about how insects affect human health. I believe that the images do adhere to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I think the images are laid out in a visually appealing way, but I also think that they are kind of small and should en enlarged.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The conversation occurring about this topic appear to be about ways to improve this article as a whole such as fixing grammatical errors, cleaning up wordiness in the article, changing out-of-date links, and adding citations. I was unable to find how the article is rated. I do not think that this article is a part of WikiProjects. We have not covered this topic in our honors class, however this article goes into detail about specific insects and the various ways that they affect human health.


 * 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?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I was unable to find the overall status of this article. Some of the strengths of the article include the lack of grammatical errors and the in-depth description of the content of certain subsections. Some ways that the article can be improved is by including an image that better suits the topic of the article such as an insect infecting a human being, citations for each subsection of the content that is discussed, more recent references that are appropriate to the article, less wordiness in the Lead, and a subsection that continues to talk about what was discussed in the Lead since some information was only mentioned once. I think that this article is underdeveloped and can use some revisions, however it is a great start at informing others about this topic.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: