User:Ryl3rs0n/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rabies in animals

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)


 * Why I chose this article

This article is related to my thesis topic. I would have liked to choose an article more closely related to raccoon or wildlife rabies, but I wasn't able to find such article. Furthermore, on the talk page, the article has "high" and "mid" importance topics and has sections already made for improvement.


 * Why it matters

Rabies is animals is an important article on Wikipedia because it presents information to the public about a potential threat that is present worldwide. The information on this article should not only be thorough but also kept up to date.


 * What my preliminary impression of it was

My initial impression of the article was that it had a strong foundation, but was missing key information. The article does not have subsections discussing the major aspects of "animal rabies", such as transmission and treatment. Furthermore, the information seems to be outdated.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


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

Yes. The first sentences explains rabies virus and how it affects animals as well as throwing in that it is a zoonotic disease.


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

No, the lead does not summarize the articles major sections


 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)

Yes, the lead includes information on the geographic range and status of the disease, which is not discussed in the article.


 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead is short, but it is overly detailed in topics that should later be discussed in more detail. For example, the stages of the disease and clinical signs is discussed in as much or more detail in the lead as it is in the actual article.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes, the the stages of the disease and mammals sections of the article are related to rabies in animals. However, several sentences within the article are either outdated, missing information, or irrelevant.


 * Is the content up-to-date?

No. For example, the lead mentions the most recent human death rate from rabies to be 2010 and compares this statistic with human deaths from 1990. Additionally, the 'coyotes' section states that rabies is common in coyotes, however, coyote rabies was eliminated in the United States. There are several other sentences and sections that are not up-to-date, such as that cats are the most reported rabid animal.


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

Yes. The section for mammals is missing raccoons and foxes as important reservoirs for rabies. Within the different sections information presented is missing information related to where that specific animal may be considered a risk for rabies. Within the mammals section, the selection of animals for their own subsections is a bit misinformative as several of these sections could be combined or removed as they are not really important to "rabies in animals".


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

The article does address rabies in wildlife, which is a historically neglected disease in terms of public education and research. Especially in bats.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?

The article is neutral. It explains both wildlife and domestic animals that may be affected by rabies.


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

There are not claims that appear heavily biased.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoint of rabies in animals from an applied standpoint are underrepresented. Instead, the article shares a lot of information that is somewhat trivial to animal rabies, such as Birds being infected.


 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?

N/A


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

N/A

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

No. For example, in the 'other placental mammals' section, the author states what the most commonly infected terrestrial animals in the United States are without any citation. Another example is in the 'skunk' section, where the author discusses a campaign organized by skunk owners. This specific sentence in the article specifically states "citation needed".


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No. The sources are focused on specific details mentioned within the article, but lack an overall perspective of "animals in rabies". The literature for rabies virus linked to animals in the article is fragmented and also contains irrelevant sources related to ecology and even animal husbandry. Furthermore, several of the sources are not peer reviewed literature, but instead links to websites.


 * Are the sources current?

Partially, although the article has a few current sources such as the "WHO 2023" citation, most of the citations are 2000's and prior.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

The sources are from a diverse spectrum of authors, whether it be those tied to biology, ecology, or virology. However, several individuals who have published important research or stepping stones related animal rabies are missing from the list of sources.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

Yes, there are better resources available. The resources they used are related to specific details discussed in the article. Rabies in animals has strong peer-reviewed articles that would be more 'umbrella' publications to animal rabies. Furthermore, several of the footnotes listed are not related to rabies. For example, there are footnote references related to thermoregulation of marsupials, red panda care, and Virginia opossum ecology.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes, the links for the footnotes: 3, 42, 35, 37 work.

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

The article is easy to read, but the flow of ideas could be improved. I did not find any spelling or grammatical errors. No. The article is missing several sections relevant to rabies in animals such as transmission. Furthermore, within the mammals section, the subsections are a bit repetitive and confusing to follow. I would add a section for animal rabies reservoirs and then another for animals not typically considered hosts.
 * 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?

Images and Media
No. The image does not enhance understanding of the topic. The same image could be used for several other topics and captioned differently to reflect that article. The caption on the image is well written and explains what can be seen in the photo. Yes. The image used in the article comes from a public domain. However, the article also credits the content providers. The image provided for the article is placed in the lead of the article, but may fit better in the stages of the disease section.
 * 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?

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The main conversation is related to an image of a beheaded jackal that seems to be removed and added back into the article several times. Other topics in the talk page include a request to add a treatment section, a question on transmission from domestic to wild animals, and a question about history of infection for various other animals.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article is not marked as good or featured. The article is part of the following c-class WikiProjects:


 * 1) Viruses (high-importance)
 * 2) Veterinary medicine (mid-importance)
 * 3) Cats (low-importance)
 * 4) Dogs (low-importance)


 * 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 differs because it groups the topic in with domestic animals and veterinary medicine. This is different than how we have covered all aspects of the epidemiological triad in class where we look at the relationships from the disease between hosts and environment.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?

The article is active but not good or featured. The last edit to the page was made in August of 2023 and it was created in October 2008. It has a total of 206 edits. The page was viewed 7,807 times in the past 30 days.


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article does not have many strengths. The information is presented clearly and the grammar is decent.


 * How can the article be improved?
 * updated information on current rabies reservoirs and distribution + statistics related to risk and mortality
 * organization of information could be more clear so that readers are able to grasp what animals are truly important for an understanding of rabies
 * the lead needs to include the topics discussed in the article
 * missing information related to transmission and geographic range of the disease among other topics should be added
 * sources should be refocused to more foundational rabies research and information


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would say that it is both underdeveloped and poorly developed. Not only does the article leave out a lot of information related to rabies in animals, but a good portion of the information provided is not relevant to rabies in animals. Furthermore, a lot of information is outdated.