User:William.p.chau/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

(Provide a link to the article here.)

Medical entomology

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 chose this article to evaluate because I thought it was an interesting topic upon reviewing the title and overall curiosity regarding the subject. It matters to me because I did some work in a biochemistry lab regarding mosquitos and how they spread viruses and I believe that the article is relevant to that in addition to having implications in healthcare.

Preliminary impression of the article is that the content appears to be relevant to what I clicked on. Everything appears to make sense on my first pass through the article.

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:
An introductory section is present and provides concise information regarding the topic. I do not believe that a brief description of all the article's major sections are described in this introduction. There is mention of the US military in the introduction and it is the only place found in the article where it is mentioned. I believe that the introduction is concise, however it definitely does need work to exclude irrelevant information.

Content:
All the content included in this article is relevant to the subject in some manner. The references, however, are quite dated and may need to be updated. Content further elaborating on the US military's involvement with medical entomology should be included as it was mentioned in the introduction. Besides, that, the article can definitely more sources and more material for better explanation of content. There is also no mention of any content relevant to equity or bridging the equity gap in this article.

Tone and Balance:
The article, for the most part, has been written in a neutral point of view using language which does not favor any opinions. I did pick up on the section titled "personal pests" which can give off a negative connotation to readers. Perhaps modification of this section using alternative descriptors will bring a more neutral perspective to this section. Also, another detail which I have spotted can be found in the Housefly section where the language used appears to conclude that house flies only contribute to diseases specifically to men.

Sources and References:
The majority of references are not ones which are easy to access / do not exist. Additionally, as mentioned above, the sources are quite dated and definitely will require an update.

Organization and Writing Quality:
The organization is one aspect of the article that can definitely use more work as a few sections all feel related to a certain degree. Writing quality upon further inspection is quite rough and will need to be improved upon to make content easier for readers to digest.

Talk Page:
The article is not currently apart of any wiki projects. Additionally the conversations included here are lacking in terms of productivity regarding additions to the article itself.