User:Ortiz.carolina/Evaluate an Article

= Evaluate an article = Which article are you evaluating?


 * Name of article: Mucormycosis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?


 * I chose this article because it is about an one of the most serious fungal infections called Mucormycosis or black fungus. This type of infection mainly attacks immunocompromised people; reason why many people after fighting the Covid-19 virus were infected by the black fungus.

Lead
Guiding questions

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?


 * The lead sentence provides information about the type of disease caused by this fungal infection. Introduce who it attacks, type of symptoms and the importance of early detection. In general, the description is concise and clear.

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?


 * No, there is not a description of the content of the article.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?


 * No, al information provided which is discussed later (causes, symptoms and diagnosis).

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?


 * The lead includes details about the infection that it describes later.

Content
Guiding questions

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?


 * Yes, totally agree.

Is the content up-to-date?


 * The most recent reference are from 2021, so it is fairly recent information.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * I consider that it is a quite complete and detailed article.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?


 * No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

Is the article neutral?


 * Yes.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * No.

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?


 * Only the idea of expressing to the reader the precautions to take with this disease.

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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * This article is generally concise.

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * There are no obvious errors.

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * Yes, totally agree. Specifically it has 11 sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?


 * Yes, it has images of how the symptoms appear, how it is diagnosed and its distribution worldwide.

Are images well-captioned?


 * Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?


 * Yes, they comply with the copyright rules.

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?


 * Yes, totally agree.

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?


 * In general, it is a good article, very well organized and detailed.

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?