User:Rbwood/Evaluate an Article: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 03:38, 17 March 2020

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Neglected tropical diseases
This article tackled various diseases found in tropical areas, multiple of which are found in the area where my PE org is located.

Lead

Lead evaluation

The introductory sentence is concise and clearly describes the article but the entire lead is not well put together and is lacking some important sources. The lead focuses on the United States, which is not a place with tropical diseases. The lead also does not give a description of the major sections of the article. The final paragraph does a better job of giving a brief overview, but the other sections of the lead are fairly poor.

Content

Content evaluation

The article is up-to-date and contains very recent sources. All of the article's content does seem relevant but it is poorly organized and does not make sense as it is. It seems like the section on prevention is missing methods for some of the diseases and it focuses only on the more common methods. Overall, this article seems to be biased toward certain diseases and ignores many important diseases.

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation

The article is neutral and doesn't seem to favor any side of the debate. The article is focused very heavily on the science behind the diseases, with very little focus on the cultural aspects surrounding them. Also, there are some methods and diseases that are underrepresented, however this does not make the article less neutral, just less complete.

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation

The article, especially the lead, makes some claims that are not cited properly. The sources that are cited are relevant, recent, and are very thorough on the topic. Most of the citations are from the WHO so they lack a variety of sources. There seems to be little academic research cited, which is where lots of research on infectious diseases comes from. This article could benefit greatly from have a wider variety of sources.

Organization

Organization evaluation

The article is organized very poorly. There are subsections that can be combined and some are repetitive. Some of the subsections are very narrow in focus and do not relate the section back to most of the diseases. Some of the subsections are too broad and do not actually tell what the subsection is about. Also, the subsections are just poorly titled.

Images and Media

Images and media evaluation

There are very few images and they are not put in the article in a visually pleasing way. The image within the lead section is well captioned and does add to the article. The other images are somewhat helpful, but there are so few pictures that they do not actually contribute. The images do seem to adhere to copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

Talk page evaluation

The article is part of WikiProject Medicine and is given a C-rating with mid-importance. It is also part of WikiProject Sanitation, also with a C-rating but of high-importance. Currently there is very little conversation going on for this topic, as discussion about it seemed to have halted in 2018. Conversations about it in the past included adding more information about the social history behind the diseases and the current government responses to the diseases.

Overall impressions

Overall evaluation

I would agree with the WikiProject ratings of a C for this article. It does cover lots of different information about the disease and is very multifaceted, however it seems to be missing many things. The article needs to be restructured to have a more logical flow and many of the sections need to be combined or edited. Many different editors have contributed to the piece, but it seems like they have not worked together to make it cohesive. I'd say the article is generally well developed but there are some places with missing information. Overall, I think the article just needs to be restructured and edited for clarity and cohesiveness.

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:

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 * [[Neglected tropical diseases]]
-* This article tackled various diseases found in tropical areas which relate to my minor project on disease prevention in Latin America
+* This article tackled various diseases found in tropical areas, multiple of which are found in the area where my PE org is located.
 === Lead ===
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
-The article is up-to-date and contains very recent sources. All of the article's content does seem relevant but it is poorly organized and does not make sense as it is. It does seem like the section on prevention is missing methods for some of the diseases and it focuses only on the more common methods
+The article is up-to-date and contains very recent sources. All of the article's content does seem relevant but it is poorly organized and does not make sense as it is. It seems like the section on prevention is missing methods for some of the diseases and it focuses only on the more common methods. Overall, this article seems to be biased toward certain diseases and ignores many important diseases.
 === Tone and Balance ===
@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
-The article is neutral and doesn't seem to favor any side of the debate. There are some methods and diseases that are underrepresented, however this does not make the article less neutral, just less complete
+The article is neutral and doesn't seem to favor any side of the debate. The article is focused very heavily on the science behind the diseases, with very little focus on the cultural aspects surrounding them. Also, there are some methods and diseases that are underrepresented, however this does not make the article less neutral, just less complete.
 === Sources and References ===
 ==== Sources and references evaluation ====
-The article, especially the lead, makes some claims that are not cited properly. The sources that are cited are relevant, recent, and are very thorough on the topic. Most of the citations are from the WHO so they lack a variety of sources. There seems to be little academic research cited, which is where lots of research on infectious diseases comes from.
+The article, especially the lead, makes some claims that are not cited properly. The sources that are cited are relevant, recent, and are very thorough on the topic. Most of the citations are from the WHO so they lack a variety of sources. There seems to be little academic research cited, which is where lots of research on infectious diseases comes from. This article could benefit greatly from have a wider variety of sources.
 === Organization ===
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ==== Talk page evaluation ====
-The article is part of WikiProject Medicine and is given a C-rating with mid-importance. It is also part of WikiProject Sanitation, also with a C-rating but of high-importance. Currently there is very little conversation going on for this topic. Discussion about it seemed to have halted in 2018. Conversations about it in the past included adding more information about the social history behind the diseases and the current government responses to the diseases.
+The article is part of WikiProject Medicine and is given a C-rating with mid-importance. It is also part of WikiProject Sanitation, also with a C-rating but of high-importance. Currently there is very little conversation going on for this topic, as discussion about it seemed to have halted in 2018. Conversations about it in the past included adding more information about the social history behind the diseases and the current government responses to the diseases.
 === Overall impressions ===
 ==== Overall evaluation ====
-I would agree with the WikiProject ratings of a C for this article. It does cover lots of different information about the disease and is very multifaceted, however it seems to be missing many things. The article needs to be restructured to have a more logical flow. Many of the sections need to be combined or edited. There have been lots of different editor on the piece, but it seems like they have not worked together to make it cohesive. I'd say the article is well developed but there are some places with missing information. Overall, I think the article just needs to be restructured and edited for clarity and cohesiveness
+I would agree with the WikiProject ratings of a C for this article. It does cover lots of different information about the disease and is very multifaceted, however it seems to be missing many things. The article needs to be restructured to have a more logical flow and many of the sections need to be combined or edited. Many different editors have contributed to the piece, but it seems like they have not worked together to make it cohesive. I'd say the article is generally well developed but there are some places with missing information. Overall, I think the article just needs to be restructured and edited for clarity and cohesiveness.
 === Optional activity ===