User:Jrhombe/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) Cat-scratch disease
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * It is within the realm of microbiology and parasitology, which I have knowledge in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The article somewhat describes the article, but not in depth. Since there seems to uncertainty of the name of the disease, I think it would be helpful to include cat-scratch fever as the common name in the introductory sentence. This might help those less educated in the topic to identify that this is what they are looking for. The Lead does not include a brief description of all major sections. No information that was not included in the article was included in the Lead. The Lead appeared to be disorganized, choppy, and possibly not detailed enough. I also found some grammatical errors.


 * 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
 * The cause section of the article was limited to one sentence and then further expanded to transmission. In the lead and other areas of the article, more than one strain of bacteria is listed. However, the Cause section only lists one. I also feel that the diagnosis section could be much more expanded on. The Treatment section was unclear who should actually be treated for the disease. The cause section does not go more in-depth than simply listing the bacterium. Most of the content appears to be up-to-date. Information included in the article is relevant to the topic.


 * 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

Overall this article remained relatively neutral. I did not observe any claims that appeared to be heavily biased, but I did notice some underrepresented viewpoints. Such viewpoints include the cause of the disease as well as why kittens are more likely to cause the disease. There was no persuasive stances in the article.


 * 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

From the sources I checked, they appeared to be up-to-date and reliable. The sources do reflect the literature in most aspects.


 * 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
 * This article was not well organized in the least. The article sections should be rearranged in a different manner. Most of the sections were written poorly and were hard to follow. There were many grammatical errors such as run-on sentences and punctuation errors. The overall structure of the article did not flow well. While most of the information was supportive, it was not concise enough and often hard to understand.


 * 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

The images dis enhance the understanding of the topic and were well captured. Some images did not include citations (was added as "my own work"). The images were laid out in a visually appealing way.


 * 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

Most of the conversations on the talk page involve cleaning up the article and further questions about the bacteria itself. This article is related to the WikiProject Medicine. We have not really talked about this topic in class; although, there is conversation in the talk page questioning if this is a parasite or not.


 * 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

This articles overall status is C-rated article and I understand why. The article should be reorganized and written with better sentence structure and flow. The article does include good and useful information. This article is poorly developed but not necessarily underdeveloped.


 * 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: