User:Madison.myr484/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: Mycoplasma bovis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I am very interested in this microbe because it has detrimental effects on cattle production in many areas of the world. It can cause many different types of disease in different ages of cattle and a solid knowledge basis around this microbe is vital for practicing veterinarians.

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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes, they talk about other animals being susceptible but do not mention it further
 * 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? Maybe, some of the references are quite old.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would say there is definitely missing content and areas that require further explanation
 * 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
 * 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? yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? yes
 * Are the sources current? Most of them
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most sound like white men so no.
 * 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
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? few
 * 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? One
 * Are images well-captioned? yes well explained
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? quite small

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? none
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-Class. Apart of two projects; Veterinary Medicine and Microbiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? More general for public knowledge

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Concise information for beginner. Needs more information and more depth.
 * What are the article's strengths? Information is easy to find, is concise, easy to read for beginners.
 * How can the article be improved? Some sections could use more information and to be further explored. Could use some more recent references, especially for it's incidence reporting.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Under-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: