User:Rebecca.Walder/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.


 * Strangles
 * Strangles is caused by Streptococcus equi subsecies equi, which is a bacterium I am learning about in VTMC347. I worked in a large animal clinic this summer, and a horse came in with suspected strangles. Although it was not strangles, it made me interested in learning more about the disease.

Lead

 * Guiding question


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the Wikipedia page, states that it is referring to the disease strangles, that is observed in horses. It states what bacteria it's clinical importance. It also has links to other possible "strangle" searches that people could have been searching.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it has a table of contents.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. Clearly answers what strangles is referring to, and has a table of contents that is linked to each section in the article, so that people can easily jump to what they are looking for.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The cited sources were all over 10 years old, except a 2012 new article, which I would not consider the most reliable source.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There are some sections of the article that is not referenced. It does not appear to be wrong, but additional research and references should be added. The references used for this page are not the best; new, more reliable sources should be use to cross-reference to confirm statements on this Wikipedia page.

Content evaluation
Most content is sources and accurate. Source 2, had many references, so it would be important to check those references as well. Source 3 was a newspaper, so I would want to cross check any information that is referenced to that source.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The prevention and treatment sections need validated. There are claims of which drugs are the best to use, and statements such as "some authorities are of the opinion...", without any references to who made these claims. Also, the term "good results" is used, which is very vague. There are no references, so it is unclear what good is, and there are no statistics or research for people to go look at themselves if they want to check these facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section "treatments" is the longest section, yet the section with no citations. I believe this is overrepresented compared to the sections that has been referenced.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Not within the last 5 years. Better resources could be used.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links all 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? Not that I noticed.
 * 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? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The first image of the agar plate is not cited; therefore I am unsure of where it came from, or if it follows copyright regulations. The other two photos of a Shetland pony, were personal photos from a wiki editor.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, they are not distracting and are placed next to relevant information.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There are multiple discussion boards: Questioning the incubation period, clarifying that it is specifically subspecies equi, as this disease is specific to horses, and wanting to find a more reliable mortality rate sources due to the fact that readers believe it is claimed too high in this article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is rated as a "start-class" on the quality scale and "mid-importance" on the importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Stating that the disease is specifically talking about the subspecies equi supports what we have discussed in class. Someone had stated that the incubation period, they thought, was a fortnight (an incubation period of 14 days), which contradicts our class notes that state it is 2-6 days. Our class notes, do support that mortality is not high; however, morbidity would be considered very high.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Okay. Could be enhanced with newer research and statistics on mortality rate, treatments (vaccinations, drugs, etc.), incubation period, immunity, etc. Overall it could provide more information in each of its sections, with higher quality resources. However, they did a good job on providing the basic information for those who may have never heard of this disease before.
 * What are the article's strengths? It would be a great place to go if you did not know what the disease was, and just needed a quick over view of the disease.
 * How can the article be improved? It could have more information on the actual bacteria that causes the disease. It could improve the references and reference all facts.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is underdeveloped. The information there is not inaccurate, however, more specificity, with references, could be added to the article.

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: