User:Matthewmendoza/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: Antimalarial medication
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because malaria is still a global public health problem and it is crucial to provide accurate and detailed information on possible treatments and medications.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead does provide concise sentences that describes the topic. It also provides bullet points, which I found helpful.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes it does. It provides this in a clear manner.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There was a sentence in the lead that described two antimalarial medications that also treated rheumatoid arthritis and lupus-related arthritis. This was not mentioned later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I found it to be just about the right length, neither too short or too long.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article's content is directly relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes it is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article, at least for me, seemed to be very objective in its position and did not waiver to one bias or another.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The specific types of medications all had a lot of information which I found somewhat overrepresented at times, but with this type of article (on medications for a serious, life-threatening infection) it is better to be lengthy than too concise. The author discussed two types of Malaria including Falciparum malaria and Vivax malaria. The Falciparum malaria section was represented well, but I think the Vivax malaria section could have been a bit longer.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the sources are made up of WHO citations, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles, and NCBI journals and they back up the information found in the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are very thorough and provide a vast amount of information on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? While I did see several newer sources (2016-2018), I also saw many sources that were more than 10 years old. I think this article should be updated with newer sources that might be more representative of the current situation with malaria and medications against it.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, all the links work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the sections and sub-sections are clear-cut and easy to read. I found it could be a bit more concise in some areas, but it was easy to follow and read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, not at all.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the sections are easy to find and cover the important topics in this article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does not contain any images, which I believe is a drawback. Images could help readers better understand the chemical structures of certain medications and understand their function better.
 * Are images well-captioned? n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? n/a

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? On the article's wikipedia talk page, I noticed an update about two months ago, that suggested the addition of a new drug (doxycycline) that is antimalarial to the existing information on the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? The article is rated as high to top importance and it is a part of 8 ongoing WikiProjects including pharmacology, microbiology, history, and history of science projects to name a few.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not discussed this topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It is a published article on Wikipedia that has been around since about 2012.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article is very detail-oriented and provides plentiful information on all the anti-malarial medications. For someone looking to know more about each medication's characteristics and how they work, this article is perfect.
 * How can the article be improved? Images could be added to show the chemical structures of the medications. The article could also be improved by updating sources to become more representative of the current research and function of newer anti-malarial medications.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? This article is very complete. It covers a broad area of information and is well constructed in most areas. It is not underdeveloped.

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: