User:LuzAreliContreras/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: Medical entomology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because entomology is interesting and as someone with little knowledge on it I will be able to more effectively evaluate it.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The articles introductory sentence did clearly describe the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a description of the actual diseases and entomology career instead of describing the significance of the following bugs that it talks about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include information about possible employers of entomologists but the contents of the article mainly explores bugs that cause disease and the diseases they cause.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise and detailed on medical entomology but the lead doesn't do a good job on introducing the importance of entomology.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the article is detailed on the topic of entomology.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Most references are before 2008 so new diseases may have been discovered since then, especially from mosquitos.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Since information on entomology career path is included in the lead the content should include some information on education required, salary, and different fields and tasks.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, It is in a topic that isn't explored often.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, there aren't any opinions or places that are more shown than others.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, no claims on any particular position are shown.
 * 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?
 * Yes but very few sources were used.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, all sources are based on endocrinology, entomology, and veterinary entomology.
 * Are the sources current?
 * No, many of the sources are from before 2008 and a few are from before 2000.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes all sources are from different places but there were not any marginalized individual applicable.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the sections are clearly sectioned and and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the article was well written.
 * 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?
 * Yes, the images include an entomologist in work and a possible bug that threatens human health.
 * 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.

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 are about the article not being up to date mainly and some about a link that doesn't work, one is also asking about a word choice since no data to support the claim was cited.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Article is rated well, it is not part of WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It focuses more on external variables than internal.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Good
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Contains basic information and worded in ways that is easy for people to understand.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article needs to be more up to date and should include additional information.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is underdeveloped but it definitely is a good start.

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: Talk:Medical entomology