User:Velt6/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Babesia - Wikipedia

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.)

I have previous knowledge of this parasite from classes that I have taken in the past. I think that this article is well written and has good diagrams that help further explain the information provided.

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.)

The introduction for this article is short and straight to the point. It includes general information on the parasite Babesia, and it is easy to locate. Here information is introduced that is later expanded upon in latter section of the article.

This article seems like it contains a lot of information on the parasite. Essential information like hots, vectors, symptoms, and treatment. One of the sections in the article is a section on how the parasite effects birds, and it feels out of place. There is not enough information in this section that it would warrant an entire section. This parasite is mainly transmitted by a tick that was infected by biting a rodent. Birds do not a part in the Babesia life cycle; they are just one of the many potential hosts.

At the top of the article there is a notice that states that this article might be difficult for the average reader to comprehend. While this article is not overly simple, this article is understandable while still being information rich. This article is written for someone who has some level of experience with biology as there are biology related jargon. Despite this, someone with little to no biology knowledge would be able to understand the article.

One of the downsides to this article is that there are many references to Babesia microti which is in a different genus from Babesia. As seen from the phylogenetic tree included in the article. These two are similar in the fact that they are transmitted via ticks and cause Babesiosis, but the inclusion of this separate parasite is confusing. The information on B. microti in this article should be cut down and limited.

The images included in the article were extremely helpful and were able to enhance the quality of the article. There are articles that depict the life cycle of the parasite. Included was also a phylogenic tree that clarified Babesia's classification. In the symptom section, there are definitions and images linked to each symptom that are extremely helpful.

In the talk page, there is a lot of discussion about the verification of the information added by users. Which makes the information presented in the article more trustworthy. The other half of the talk page consists of conversations on formatting. The last entry to this discussion was a note that the article was edited to resemble a scientific manual. One of the entries that I liked was one where they are discussing an error made. They mixed some things up and noted that they would fix it.

This article is well developed and presents important information on the parasite. The images and diagrams that are included in the article are thought out and each of them serve to enhance the information included in the sections. Where this article falls short is on the level of confusion that the article causes. The choice to add information on B. microti is unnecessary. In order to improve this article these bits of information should be limited.