User:PaladinSandalphon/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
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I thought it was about using insects in a therapeutic setting (ie maggot therapy for debridement)

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, briefly describes what medical entomology is and what different names for the field of study are.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The article includes a table of contents, but does not bring up the specific insects of each section in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead talks about medical entomologists being employed by chemical companies, the US military, governments, and universities, but does not elaborate on this in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead includes extraneous information that would be better suited to the article itself, such as who medical entomologists are hired by or the resurgence of bed bugs leading to an increased demand in medical entomologists.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The major sections of the article pertaining to the different types of bugs are unnecessary (They just seem like the Lead from the source article about the bugs) and don’t fully connect to the topic of medical entomology.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Many of the sources cited are dated more than ten years ago, with some dating all the way back to the 1970’s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The descriptions about the bugs that medical entomologists commonly study seems unnecessary, especially since it is not fully elaborated on how these organisms are studied, why they are studied, and what we have learned from them.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article appears neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, the article itself seems neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I don’t even recall reading about different viewpoints in the article
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article doesn’t have any sort of persuasive tone.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There is a claim that more people have died due to insect-borne illnesses during wars than from battle injuries which needs to be cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The references include universities, the WHO, and a medical journal on entomology.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Many of the sources cited are over 10 years old, with some dating back to the 1970’s. I’m not entirely sure how much the field of medical entomology changes but I’m sure there has been some changes to the field since then.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Many different authors are cited, but I can’t tell much about the authors’ identities or backgrounds with the given information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The Armed Forces Pest Management Board has moved to a new website since the article was made, as the link leads to a redirect page telling you to visit their new website. The other links I checked worked fine.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is pretty easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * This may just be display errors from my iPad but some of the words appear to be missing spaces between them, especially between a hyperlinked word and a regular word.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article is broken down into sections about different ‘pest’ bugs that affect human health, but I feel like each of these sections could be connected to the topic of medical entomology more.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes two images. One of aedes albopictus (which I don’t recall reading about in the article), and one of a US Navy medical entomologist identifying insects.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The one about the Navy entomologist is well captioned, but the one of the insect does not include the common name so many people will not know what the insect is if they don’t recognize it, and the caption does not include its connection to medical entomology.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The bug image comes from the CDC’s image library and is in public domain, the copyright status of the Marine image is unknown.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I feel like there could be more images in the article as a whole. The Navy one appears at a relevant part of the article, but the image of the insect seems randomly placed.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Several people are making suggestions on how the article can be improved, such as adding a citation where needed, taking out unneeded sentences, a citation leading to a source that requires paid access, confusing wording that needs to be fixed...
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article doesn’t have any visible ratings, but it is a part of a larger group of articles on the subject of infectious disease and microbiology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Doesn’t follow any specific people, no notable figures mentioned, doesn’t talk about the history of the field of science

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article doesn’t look like it’s seen any major edits in quite some time, and still has a lot of suggestions that have not been implemented yet.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article is fairly concise and has a very neutral tone
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Some of the wording is confusing, the sections about different insects of interest could be tied in better with the field of medical entomology, maybe the practical uses of medical entomology could have their own sections in the article
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article seems underdeveloped and neglected given the lack of major updates and the fact that most of the sources are from over a decade ago.

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: