User:Mneschbach/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: Halicephalobus gingivalis
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * This article does not have a lot of information. Many of the areas could be expanded upon.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * Halicephalobus gingivalis is a free-living nematode species that was identified and named in 1954 by Stefanski. It is a facultative parasite of horses and humans. Based on studies performed on infected horses in Florida, the parasite is associated with swampland environments. They are dioecious, as both female and male organs have been found separately. Eggs and immature larvae have been found in tissue sections, indicating an asexual reproductive cycle. Free-living males have been found in soil environments, indicating that sexual reproduction also occurs. The site of entry for the parasite is thought to be through breaks in skin or through mucous membranes. They are distributed worldwide, as cases of equine infections have been found in Canada, Florida, the Nordic regions, and Arabian horses alike.


 * 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? The lead could include more on the section on treatments for the parasite.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * 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?
 * The most recent source used is from 2014. Searching for more recent sources may be useful for the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Each section could be expanded upon. Especially morphology and lifecycle stages that can be important for diagnosing this parasite.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
Because this is not an opinion based topic, there does not appear to be bias. People are not divided on aspects of this parasite.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some are news sources instead of peer reviewed articles. These could be corrected. About half of the sources appear to be peer reviewed literature.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? More current sources should be searched for and added when possible.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work.

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? No
 * 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? There are no images provided. A phylogeny is provided.
 * Are images well-captioned? No images present.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images present.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images present.

Images and media evaluation
Add any images that are available. Useful images may include lifecycle of the organism or their natural swamp habitats.

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?

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?

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: