User:Katiesaunders22/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: Rocky Mountain spotted fever
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen to evaluate this article because I was born and raised in the Rocky Mountains and this fascinating bacterial infection caught my eye. I want to know more about Rocky Mountain spotted fever as well as educate more people about this condition.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Rocky Mountain spotted fever (RMSF) is a bacterial disease spread by ticks. It typically begins with a fever and headache, which is followed a few days later with the development of a rash. The rash is generally made up of small spots of bleeding and starts on the wrists and ankles. Other symptoms may include muscle pains and vomiting. Long-term complications following recovery may include hearing loss or loss of part of an arm or leg.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes somewhat it gives what the disease is how its spread and a brief development of the disease.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it goes over the beginning symptoms then leads into the later development followed by other random symptoms and long term symptoms. This could be more organized and clearer in this section, the first section only contains two or so words about each of the mentioned and I think there should be more than that describing the symptoms and the progression of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, all of the information mentioned is evaluated later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is almost too concise I think there should be a few more details in the intro to describe more of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The content is very relevant to the topic yet it is vague. This article needs more detail on the vast majority of the content sections. A few of the sections are well organized and seem to be fairly accurate as far as I know but they need more detail and some explanation.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes most of the sources are fairly recent as in 2019, a few of the sources and information seems slightly outdated and in need of some refurbishing yet for the most part it is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There isn't any missing information. That being said there needs to be more information some of the content areas are lacking in a sufficient amount of information. Under the subtitle Society there are three lines of confusing information. Therefore this area needs to be better named and described in more detail because I as a reader do not know what society means pertaining to Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
 * 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

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes the article is neutral there is no language or lines suggesting one side or another in this article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The article describes Rocky Mountain spotted fever from a very neutral standpoint.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources look really good there are over 15 solid sources ranging from CDC information to Medical journals. All of the sources look cited properly except two or three and they all look reliable with .gov sites and other medical journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources look thorough they look like they represent most of the research done on Rocky Mountain Spotted fever. There are also a huge variety of different sources some from the CDC, medical journals, one from a hospital describing early emergency care and another from the Pediatric clinic of America.
 * Are the sources current? The sources need to be updated slightly they range from 2007 to about 2018 nothing since 2018 which indicates that there may be new research on the topic and this would be worth looking into when editing this article.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The article is concise and clear yet some of the content areas mention things then don't describe what they are and give no resource to find out what they mean as well as the symptom content area needs way more detail it is too concise.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes two that I could find so far.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The overall organization of the article is very good it is broken down into well labeled and clear subtitles.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes... although there could be a few more images to enhance the page. As well as there a few blurry photos that need to be replaced with clear images.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes but there are a few grammatical errors in the picture captions.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, but there need to be a few more descriptive and engaging photos that really paint a picture of what this infection is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are no conversations going on behind the scenes of what is going on in this topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? No. It is rated as a c-class. An intermediate article with room for improvement.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia discusses this topic in less detail than needed.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The overall status of the article is it needs improvement.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is well organized for the most part and the base information is there.
 * How can the article be improved? To improve this article there needs to be more information added as well as grammatical errors fixed.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is underdeveloped and therefore needs improvement in one or more areas. The article needs to be checked for grammatical indescrepencies as well as the article needs more information and updated sources.

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: