User:Nzamel/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.


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naegleria_fowleri
 * I have chosen this article because Naegleria_fowleri affects humans. I am a biology/ medical concentration major and I am very interested in learning about medical facts relating to parasites.


 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, it does.
 * 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?
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic. It includes the life cycle of the organism and its pathogenicity.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not all the content is up-to-date, some of it refers to sources from the 1980's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Content evaluation
The content is very explanatory and fills in the missing gaps of knowledge that a reader has

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a certain position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * One viewpoint that I consider overrepresented is not classifiying N. fowleri as an amoeba. There were no reasons provided of why it's not an amoeba.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, it is an unbiased article.

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?
 * The sources reflect the available literature.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not all sources are current, some of the sources are 10+ years older.
 * 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?
 * The article is well written and very easy to short. But I though that there should be more details covered.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article does not 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?
 * Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article only includes one image.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The image had a detailed caption
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The image is very clear and shows specific details.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The conversations were specifically addressing how to kill this parasite.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as start- class on the WikiProject Microbiology quality scale. The article has also been rated as mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The way wikipedia discusses this topic is by giving out specific details. In class, we talk more about an overview for each topic.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is complete.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strenghts were provided accurate history of the parasite and enclosing specific details about its life cycle.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could be improved by including more images for visualization and by including ways to target this parasite.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is well developed but should include more important aspects.

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Naegleria_fowleri&action=edit