User:Kendram.kbm856/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of article: Drug resistance
- Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have chosen this article because it is one of the key points to address in this course and is extremely relevant to the field of veterinary medicine.
Lead
[edit]- 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
[edit]The opening line of this article provides a clear introduction as to what the article is about, but does not give specific descriptions for each section of the article. Some of the information in the lead, such as statistics regarding the use of antibiotics in farming, is good information, but may be overly specific for an introduction and would be better placed in a later section. I also found that some of the language used in the lead was quite casual, and read more like someone was speaking, rather than as a informative article.
Content
[edit]- 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
[edit]The main sections of this article are types of drug resistance, mechanisms, metabolic cost and treatment. This is all relevant to the topic of drug resistance and good information to include. From my fairly limited knowledge of drug resistance, it seems like the content is up to date, although I'm sure it is rapidly evolving. The section on treatment ends rather suddenly, mentioning that there is research being done on antimicrobial peptides as a potential replacement for antibiotics, but not giving any specifics or details as to why this may work as a treatment, nor any explanation or link to what antimicrobial peptides are.
Tone and Balance
[edit]- 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
[edit]The lead of the article and the article itself read quite differently. The body of the article comes off as neutral, even explaining in the types of drug resistance section how many of the factors that contribute to drug resistance can be either intentional or inadvertent. The lead, however, comes off as biased. It specifically mentions damage caused by the farming and livestock industry, and states that governments and pharmaceutical companies are not making enough of an effort towards the problem of drug resistance. The lead also uses phrases such as "doomed to failure" and "most significant public health crisis facing humanity", which although possibly true, comes off as hyperbolic and definitely persuades the reader towards having fear regarding drug resistance.
Sources and References
[edit]- 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
[edit]Most of the citations used in this article come from reliable journals and other credible sources, but there are a few references made to CBC, BBC and other newspaper articles, all outlining the dangers out antibacterial soaps. These articles are specifically written with a bias that antibacterial soap is bad, so they aren't the most appropriate sources to be using. The majority of the citations were dated between 2010-2020, but there were a few that went back as far as the 1960s. All of the links I checked worked and led to the appropriate web page.
Organization
[edit]- 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
[edit]The article is well organized and broken down into appropriate sections. I didn't find any spelling errors, but there were a few spots where the grammar was a bit awkward and didn't flow well, one example being the opening sentence of the 'Types" section. The article does a good job of breaking down some complex processes and terminology and making it easier to understand.
Images and Media
[edit]- 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
[edit]This article only contains one image. It is a small diagram that illustrates a quick overview of drug resistance in a very simplified manner, with a short and simplistic caption. The image is listed as being from the public domain and adheres to Wikipedia copyright regulations.
Checking the talk page
[edit]- 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
[edit]These is some discussion on the talk page debating antimicrobial vs drug resistance, and if the two should be represented together or separately. There is also some discussion regarding the use of resistance vs tolerance in some places in the article. The article is part of three wikiprojects: Medicine, Pharmacology and Microbiology. For all three it is rated C-class with high importance. The way wikipedia discusses the topic is quite similar to how we do in class, although there is some different emphasis as to how this problem can be approached from a consumer perspective, rather than a medical professional.
Overall impressions
[edit]- 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
[edit]Overall, I think this is a well written article. The article does a good job of making a complex subject easy to follow and understand. I think the lead is the main part that could be improved upon, as it is the only part that reads as biased, rather than neutral. I think the article is complete as far containing the sections it should, but the treatment section could be a bit more detailed, rather than having such broad examples. The article as a whole is well developed and complete, but needs a stronger and less biased lead section.
Optional activity
[edit]- 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: