User:Mmh469/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

 * Name of article: Medical entomology
 * This article is interesting and I need to complete the training course. Take my evaluation with a grain of salt.

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 introductory sentence of this article is clear, readable, and sets a secure expectation for the rest of the material presented. The introductory paragraph frame the significance of entomology in the context of medicine and details the broad spectrum of research being performed and applications of such research. While the Lead does not detail a outline of the rest of the article, it does provide necessary information to understand why this research is important. The Lead is not overly wordy nor does it use particular jargon that would inhibit readability of the information.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
All content presented is relevant to Medical entomology, but the material is significantly outdated. The cited references are from 2002 and older, leaving a significantly large undocumented period of time in research. Otherwise, the information is presented well and explained adequately.

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 and informative. It does not have any overt opinions or preferences.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All facts are associated with relevant links and citations. All links tested appear to be functional and provide appropriate supplemental information. The cited sources are adequately reliable and thorough for their time. the article would benefit from an update as the sources are 18 years old, or older.

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?

Images and Media
I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. I also found no issues with the flow and organization of the article.


 * 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
The article uses few images, but they ones used appear to adhere to copyright regulations. They images have captions, but they could stand to be more descriptive. I would also recommend a change in the formatting of the images. They seem to be inserted to fill space and could be better integrated into the format of the article.

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 are few comments in the Talk page for this article. For the most part these comments suggest improvements in phrasing and presentation of information or propose updating the information to include more current insects and diseases.

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
Overall, the article does an adequate job explaining what Medical entomology is and its common applications. The information is significantly outdated, but it still retains integrity to provide a surface level understanding for people exploring a newly developing interest in entomology. This article could be improved through updating the information with newer references. The article may also benefit from a subheading detailing current research being performed or more subsets on specific household pests that harbor potential diseases.

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: