User:Julianaquintero0917/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: Sexually transmitted infection
 * This article was chosen because it relates to my TIMOB which is a business called Lab On The Go. An on demand service that will offer diagnostic blood tests and STD testing at the comfort of your home. This explains the importance of these stds toward the health and why you should get tested.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead is very well written. It includes an introductory sentence that clearly defines what a sexually transmitted infection is. Additionally, concise and easily helps you understand the purpose of the article. It also includes statistics to understand the gravity of the subject. Just by reading the lead, it mentions all the topics that will be further discussed in the article. Furthermore, the table of contents is present with all the sections and subsections.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it clearly defines what a sexually transmitted infection is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It includes a table of contents with all the sections and subsections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything mentioned in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise and easily helps you understand the purpose of the article. It also includes statistics to understand the gravity of the subject.

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content was very well written, everything was relevant to the topic except the plant section. The plant section is a short section with information on STIs in plants caused by a fungus. This section was a bit distracting due to the fact that it was talking about humans all along and then mentions this. I believe this section could be deleted. Other than this, it is updated with multiple edits this month (last edit: March 12).


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * multiple edits in march, last time edit was march 12
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I believe that plant section doesn't belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article was neutral all along with no claims or viewpoints that stood out. All the information presented was based on facts and therefore, the article did not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no, based purely on facts
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, distributed well
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are many sources (113), all being reliable and current. They cite peer-reviewed articles of the subject as well as many sources such as CDC or NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information). A few links were checked and they do work.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, they cite reliable sources such as CDC or NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, 113 citations
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article has good organization and is well-written with no grammatical or spelling errors. There are many subsections that allow the reader to easily follow and understand the main points. However, there is a section I do find irrelevant, plant section, which I believe distracts the reader.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * 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, easy to follow and understand

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article include images (adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations) but many are old propaganda posters. I believe they should use updated ones to enhance the understanding of the topic. Even thought they are well captioned and explain the purpose, they seem somewhat unorganized. By organizing them, the article could flow better.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes but many are old propaganda posters. I believe they should use updated ones.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes explain meaning
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * somewhat, seem unorganized

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There are important conversations occurring on how to represent this topic. For example, there was a discussion about the importance of calling them sexually transmitted infections rather than diseases. Diseases are symptomatic but by referring to infections, it doesn't mean symptoms must be exhibited. This article is not part of any WikiProjects and was rated a B-class. A B-class article is almost complete and without major problems but there is room for improvement. Although, we haven't talked about this specific topic in the course, however we have talked about what makes a website successful. This website has a navigation menu (table of contents) that invites reader to read and easily find information.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * the importance of calling them sexually transmitted infections rather than diseases
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * B- class: The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * we have not talked about this specific subject but has a navigation menu

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The overall status of the article is good. It is well-developed and informative. Its strengths include the organization and quality of the information. However, there is room for improvement. The photos should be updated to current photos and organized in a better way to enhance the article. Additionally, the section about plants needs to be taken out.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * good
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * organization of information
 * How can the article be improved?
 * organize photos and update to new ones
 * take out plant section
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * well-developed, very informative

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: