User:Lgnorth/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) Forensic entomology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * As an entomology major, I find this subject and its relation to STS 11 to be interesting. It is also a subject I have studied previously and taken great interest in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * "Forensic entomology is the scientific study of the invasion of the succession pattern of arthropods with their developmental stages of different species found on the decomposed cadavers during legal investigations."
 * It's a good topic sentence, though I take issue with it stating specifically that it is about development during the decomposition of bodies. As the paragraph later states, that is only one of the three applications of the field.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * " Forensic entomology can be divided into three subfields: urban, stored-product and medico-legal/medico-criminal entomology"
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * To my knowledge
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not really, though I would consider the Case Study section to be a bit extraneous as it only concerns a single study that took place in New Zealand. I think it could be improved by adding more case studies from various geographical locations.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, other than the topic being a somewhat obscure application of entomology

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

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Some facts presented are labeled with citation needed
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat; the most recent I saw was from 2015.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There do seem to be a very diverse set of names among the references
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some of them are broken

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?
 * Not that I noticed
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * It includes two. One is a diagram of a ladybug, which I found to be odd because ladybugs aren't associated with forensic entomology. A beetle or fly would be more appropriate. The second is a photo of a flesh fly, which is a very relevant fly.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The diagram isn't captioned, and the flesh fly's caption is simply "Flesh fly on decomposing flesh", which gets the job done.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Hard to say because there are only two and one is in the sidebar.
 * Hard to say because there are only two and one is in the sidebar.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * One interesting thing is that there were people mentioning a section about Hymenoptera (bees and ants) that was apparently later removed, then added back in but much smaller due to the group's relatively low impact on forensics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is rated B-class for WikiProject Law Enforcement and WikiProject Insects, and C-class for WikiProject Death.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We haven't discussed much in the way of the use of scientific evidence in court yet, which is what forensic entomology would be connected to.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It seems thorough
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It provides a lot of historical background
 * Concise organization and detail
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It needs more citations.
 * The section about flies lists many of the significant Families, but some of them (such as Phoridae - coffin flies) do not give a description for why they are significant or what their presence indicates for a case.
 * Could probably use more images
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is well-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: