User:Smcmilln/Evaluate an Article

User:Smcmilln/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: Talk:Bovine viral diarrhea
 * I am interested in the content and particularly interested in animal diseases.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The lead sentence should also include a brief summary of what BVD symptoms in cattle. It does okay covering the article's major sections but is missing a sentence on diagnosis. Overall the lead is concise but could be improved with a few tweaks.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic at hand but could use a little updating. It didn't notice any glaring gaps in content or anything that does not belong.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article seems neutral though it does caution the impact of lack of vaccination and alludes to the devastation this disease can cause amongst livestock. It is not blatantly advertising for any particular pharmaceutical even though vaccination is a key preventative factor.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Yes the article is backed up fairly well thought he diagnosis section is fairly sparse and could use additional citations. Additionally, some of the sources are quite dates and could use updating. Additionally, not all of the links take you to a relevant BVD page.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? In the diagnosis section, there are very few citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is fairly concise but it is jargon-heavy. Someone who was not in the field or familiar with veterinary medicine would likely have trouble reading it. It is fairly well organized and broken down into representative sections.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The photos are okay but could be improved to show pictures of cattle with the disease or pictures of the viral structure. The pictures that exist okay captions. More pictures would be helpful.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * This article gets a C and is part of the Veterinary Medicine WikiProject and of high importance to that group.


 * 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

Overall I think this article is okay but definitely has room for improvement. I think it is currently most applicable for veterinary audiences but may be improved for the lay person or animal caretaker by changing some language and adding additional updated citations and photographs. It is slightly underdeveloped at this point.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * 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?

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: