User:Mtbernhard/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
 * I chose this article because it was one of the only topics on the page that seemed of interest to me.

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 effectively describes the article's topic. There is somewhat of a description of various sections in the article, but the descriptions are not very relevant or in an organized format. The Lead also appears to include information that is not present in the article. In fact, most of what they discuss in the Lead is not present in the article. It is an overly detailed section that gives a broad range of information, but never ends up explaining it.

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?

Content evaluation
The content provided is relevant to the topic, but the organization is pretty poor. There is plenty of content that was introduced in the Lead that is not included in the article sections. The sections included are relevant, but they are not enough for this article to make much sense. The content appears to be 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 appears to be aimed at informing the audience of a topic in a neutral manner. There does not appear to be any bias or agenda being pushed by the author. There are no strong viewpoints that overpower or overrepresent other viewpoints.

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
There are some relevant references, but there are not enough. There is a ton of information on this page that is uncited, or cited incorrectly by Wiki standards. The references that are used are of good quality, but they do not make up for the abundance of uncited information. The links I clicked do work and are up-to-date.

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 not very well-written. There are grammatical errors throughout, and they make it rather hard to read the article with any understanding. The errors interrupt the flow of the article. I do not think that it is well-organized, as the sections are relevant to the main points, but do not cover everything they need to. The Lead is not concise, while the sections are a little too concise.

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
There are two images in the article, and they do enhance the quality of the page. They are included in the right places in the article and are well-captioned. From what I can tell, they adhere to the copyright regulations. It would have been nice to include more images throughout the page, because the only two included are in the Lead.

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
The talk page has primarily article evaluations that are saying the same things that I am saying here. There is an archive bot doing something, but I do not really understand it.

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
I think the article is not very good overall. It introduces good information in the Lead and has a view relevant sections, but it seems incomplete as a whole. The article needs more sections, more detailed information, more citations, and a better flow of writing. It is very hard to read and is poorly developed. It seems incomplete, and what is complete lacks a lot of detail.

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: