User:MCT98/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
 * Insects are fascinating creatures. Frankly, they are also one of the most misunderstood and feared creatures to people. These little critters not only populated throughout the entire planet thriving in their own ecosystem, but also serve a valuable contribution to the study of disease transmission between insects and humans.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic following brief descriptions of the type of research done in the study of medical entomology. The Lead include information that is present in the article. The Lead is concise; omitting unnecessary information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date? It is up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Article's content is relevant and up-to-date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is neutral. It present facts and information and omits subjective statements. The article does not attempt to persuade the readers. Readers are given the information and the opportunity to ddecide their stance on the topic.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are reliable and the links work. However, most of the references are from the 1900's. Thus, some sources of are not current.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written and concise. Sections of the passage include footnotes and correct grammar. There seems to be no signs of spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
Image are relevant to the information present and are well-captioned. They provide visual aid for readers to better understand the article and its points.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
There seems not to be a Talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
The article is overall good. The article's strengths is that it is concise and neutral. However, the article can expand its contents into greater details.

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