User:Kirstenmae99/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) Giardia
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate due to liking the name of the parasite.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is short and concise but also has some random details.

Lead evaluation
The lead is fairly short and doesn't briefly describe any of the article's major sections but includes random information like who the genus of the parasite is named after.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? They do not describe the life cycle of the parasite.

Content evaluation
The content section in this article is fairly short but does contain important information about the parasite. There could be things added to the content section such as the life cycle of the parasite.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of this article are very neutral and the author does not try to persuade the reader.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Some of the sources are more current while some are from the 1800's.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
The information in this article was backed up by sources that did reflect the literature on the topic. While some of the sources are more current, there are quite a few that are not current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? I didn't see any spelling issues but there are some grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation
The article is organized fairly well and contains only a few grammatical errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
The images in this article help the reader understand more about the topic, are well captioned, and laid out in an appealing manner.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? The conversations encourage merging this page with a more updated page on the same topic.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? This article is rated a Start-Class and Mid-importance. It is a part of the Microbiology WikiProject.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It is more casual.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page shows that there is another page about this parasite with much more information and better sources.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Fair.
 * What are the article's strengths? The strengths of this article include how easy it was to read and understand the content.
 * How can the article be improved? This article could be improved with more detailed information and more images.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I believe this article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
This article seems to be well written for the most part but could include more detailed information. They could also include more pictures to help explain the information presented.

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: