User:Zsheets10/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)Medical entomology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. It was listed under the academics disciplines category that was linked to for where to start. It seems to be related to parasitology because it deals with the study of insects that carry parasites and pathogens that can infect humans or animals.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The intro sentence does introduce the subject adequately, although the wording is a little clunky with the inclusion of veterinary entomology in the introduction. The lead seems to focus on the types of places that utilize medical entomology, but the rest of the article discusses the different types of important insects and insect borne diseases. These are not really described in the lead. Bovine encephalitis is mentioned in the lead as an example of a disease that can affect humans and animals, but does not appear to be brought up again in the rest of the article, nor have a citation. The lead is a little overly detailed, with a monster of a run on sentence that is hard to follow.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The content seems relevant to the topic, but doesn't explain much about the profession. Rather, it focuses on the insects that cause diseases. It also has a description of what ectoparasites are, when just the link to the Wikipedia page on ectoparasites would be enough. This term defining occurs a couple times through the article. The article itself seems less about medical entomology as a discipline and more of a list of medically important insects and insect borne diseases. The content seems up to date.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
I didn't notice any major bias in the article. Its tone seems to be mostly to inform and not persuade.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
There don't seem to be many sources used for the information presented in the article.There are entire paragraphs without a single source. There are more sources that are from before the 2010s, but a few from the last two years. I clicked on one source, ALPF medical research and went to the main page. It did not seem very reliable, with its main page covered in click bait about stopping snoring or removing cold sores. I just can't get a read on what the hell its supposed to be. Google searching them leads to their page and the wiki article on medical entomology, and a couple of wiki articles about psychological disorders. I don't get the impression that ALPF should be used as a source.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The articles organization is odd, it describes the discipline of medical entomology in the introduction, then splits its article into Insects of medical importance, personal pests, the housefly, the cockroach, biting insects, and then it lists major insect borne diseases. It seems like since the information for each of those sections is fairly slim, they could have just combined it into one section about the insects and wrote more about the profession in another section. In the intro, there is a large section that is almost unreadable. I cannot understand what is being said, and it reads as if it has been through google translate. It also cryptically ends with [Yon w]. I don't know if that's meant the be a source, but it isn't a link to anything. After that, the rest of the article seems to be grammatically correct.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
For an article like this, images aren't as important. The two images that it does have are related, and seem to be public domain. One image is well captioned and describes what is going on. The other just describes the genus species of the mosquito in the image when it could describe more about the act of biting, what kind of diseases this particular species might spread, etc. Otherwise, the images seem fine.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
I don't seen any ratings or links to wikiprojects. Talk page mostly discusses particular improvements to the article, like grammar and organization.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
The article needs to be edited to fix the grammatical errors that make the most of the intro incomprehensible. It also is going to need many more sources for a lot of its claims. Certain terms do not need to be defined in this article. There will need to be more edits in the future to polish this article.

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: