User:Stevenovakowski/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: (link)Cryptosporidium
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Infection leads to clinically relevant symptoms that I've seen first hand, and I've also seen this infection come back positive on routine culture and susceptibility tests I've submitted.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? It does. Information pertaining to the treatment of infection. This is not followed up on the article as far as I can tell.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Fairly concise.

Lead evaluation
Fairly concise, and gives a good overall idea of what to expect on this page. It does, however, provide details that aren't followed up on within the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, as it pertains to infection by the organism. It doesn't have much to do with the organism itself.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Much of the content is recent to 2015, only one article more recent than that. The content could be updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There could be a section regarding treatment, as opposed to two sentences within the lead. The life cycle section is quite small also. Again, most of the article pertains to infection by the organism.

Content evaluation
The content is valid, but borders on insufficient. An extra headings and additions to sections could be useful. More discussion on the organism itself should be present within this article.

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? No

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone and balance of this article appear to be sound.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Some statements do not appear to have citations. Only two sentences within the Exposure Risks section has citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not entirely. For example, the link to the article referencing the treatment for cryptosporidium doesn't specify that it is the only approved drug, just that it is an approved drug.
 * Are the sources current? Only one citation is post 2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Some of the information included in this article could be more thoroughly cited, and more recent information should be sought to back up some of these claims. For example, that cryptosporidium doesn't typically cause illness in healthy people.

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

Organization evaluation
The article is well organized, but maybe slightly lacking.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned? No.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Somewhat.

Images and media evaluation
The images used are helpful, but not well explained. Furthermore, one of the images included is a lifecycle image, and that section within the content is quite meagre.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Many quite minor topics (mentions in TV and music), a few quite relevant (that the article mostly talks about the disease and not the organism).
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? WikiProject Microbiology, rated Start-Class, Mid-Importance.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It talks about the disease mostly, and not the organism. No phylogeny, nothing of that nature.

Talk page evaluation
Many well illustrated points, respectfully communicated. Not too large in scope, so therefore good as a an example of some of the conversations that can take place there.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Mid-Importance
 * What are the article's strengths? It has a good foundation, just needs improvement and more contributions.
 * How can the article be improved? More contributions, more discussion about the organism itself.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
Generally an underdeveloped article. At a glance, it seems like a very incomplete approach to the topic.

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: Talk:Cryptosporidium