User:Vanessa.vec011/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: Streptococcus bovis
I chose this article to evaluate because I'm interesting in diseases of ruminants, particularly cattle. I learned about the role of S. bovis during first year rumen physiology and its contribution to subclinical ruminal acidosis.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, however I would have broken the sentence up into two.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Somewhat - the lead gets confusing with the mention of S. gallolyticus as being the cause of ruminal acidosis or bloat in cattle.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? There is mention of other streptococci bacteria (S. equinus, S. gallolyticus, S. infantarius) that seems outside the scope of the article.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is a bit too concise in my opinion.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes - there is information on bacterial selection characteristics, its morphology, and its Gram staining. There is information on the role of S. bovis in human diseases (endocarditis, sepsis, colorectal cancer).
Is the content up-to-date? Most of the references were published 10 or more years ago.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would include more information on "grain overload" in cattle and how a low pH ruminal environment favours the growth of S. bovis.

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no "claims" made, however the article focuses mostly on human infection as opposed to its role in ruminants.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I would include more about the role of S. bovis in ruminants.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Not all the sources are linked - rather, they have a number contained within parentheses at the end of the sentence (e.g, "(3)"). This is the case in the "S. bovis group" section of the article.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There is a mix of review articles and primary research articles.
Are the sources current? No - the majority of sources used were published over 10 years ago.
Check a few links. Do they work? One link to the online Merck Veterinary Manual does not redirect correctly.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Most of the article is well-written and easy to understand.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I could see.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The article is very brief.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
Are images well-captioned? N/A
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Apparently the name S. bovis is no longer its official name, but is still the name commonly used.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated C-class, High-importance. It is part of three WikiProjects: Microbiology, Medicine, and Veterinary medicine.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Unlike in a veterinary school, this article mostly focuses on human medicine.

What is the article's overall status? The article has good parts but room for expansion.
What are the article's strengths? Good description of the bacterium's characteristics.
How can the article be improved? Expansion of the sections, inclusion of images.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is underdeveloped. There is room for improvement.

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 — ~~~~