User:Vamurph/Evaluate an Article

User:Vamurph/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: Spirometra erinaceieuropaei
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article because it is a rare parasite that is very interesting because it can also infect humans (possibly a reservoir host).

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead for this wikipedia page is very brief and does not offer much prelude into each major section. This first section does concisely explain what Spirometra erinaceieuropaei is, but doesn't give any further description of where it is most commonly found and how rare it is in the population that it lives on. I think the general set up of the lead is concise, though, and just needs some additional information to make it well-rounded.


 * 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?

==== Lead evaluation: This section needs some work (namely, more information) but overall has a good start in defining this parasite in a clear and concise way to give a general description of this parasite. (3/5) ====

Content

 * Guiding questions

All of the sections and information therein pertains to Spirometra erinaceieuropaei. Looking at the references, the content is relatively up to date, but there is definitely content missing that would be vital to understanding this parasite. I think there is very few pieces of information that aren't necessary for the topic.


 * 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?

==== Content evaluation: I would say the content is definitely lacking as there aren't many detailed sections (all very short) and references are also lacking. However, the content is relevant and helpful in understanding this parasite. Overall, I think some of the sections are just underrepresented and need additional information. (2/5) ====

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is neutral and fact-based in all of its sections and I did not notice any bias in this article, besides maybe saying something is "easy" or "interesting". Those comments were very rare and easily fixable, though. I think the lifecycle and pathogenesis of this parasite might be underrepresented. It is one of the most important aspects of parasites and understanding how it spreads during what life cycle it is on each host. Also, including links to other wiki pages for clarification would be helpful in sections like that. No persuasion is happening in this article.


 * 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

The facts are mainly backed up by secondary sources of information. As said earlier, I think because of the general lack of sources it isn't completely thorough and reflect all of the studies and information on the topic. The oldest source is from 2007, so relatively current but could find more recent papers. One of the links sent me to a broken page while another led me to a general website page, so those need to be fixed.


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

==== Sources and references evaluation: Overall, the references throughout the article need work as well as including more sources and information that is hopefully a bit more current and can add novel information about this parasite. (3/5) ====

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I think the article is well written and easy to comprehend. It is also concise, and I did not notice any grammatical errors when reading through it. There are a lot of general words used, though, which kind of makes it a bit vague at times. I think this article is well organized, but a few things may need to be switched around or another major section added.


 * 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

This articles actually doesn't include any images and therefore does not give a visual representation of this parasite. Lifecycle pictures as well as general layout of parasite anatomy are both vital in the research and discussion of any parasite.


 * 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

There are currently no conversations going on about this topic and how it should be presented to the general public. It is rated as Start-class and belongs to both the medicine and animal wikiprojects. On both, however, it is classified as low-importance.


 * 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

I think the overall status of this article is that it needs a lot of work. It has a great foundation and the set up will make it very easy to expand upon. Mainly, this article just needs more information where it is underrepresented, as well as more sources to give a more updated and accurate analysis of this parasite. Once more metaphorical "meat" is added to the bones of this article, it will be a lot stronger and a better assessment of this dangerous parasite. At this point, I would say the article is just underdeveloped with the possibility of needing to make slight changes to the structure itself.


 * 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?

==== Overall evaluation: This article definitely needs some work, but it provides a great starting ground to get this page up and running! With a little work, this article can be very informative in learning about this parasite and comparing/distinguishing it from others. (2.5/5) ====

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: