Jump to content

User:HUER00/Evaluate an Article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evaluate an article[edit]

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

  • Medical entomology: Medical entomology
  • I chose to evaluate this article over medical entomology, because I'm interested in medicine and haven't really heard of much about how insects interact with humans and how it has to do with human health threats.

Lead[edit]

The discipline of medical entomology, or public health entomology, and also veterinary entomology is focused upon insects and arthropods that impact human health. Veterinary entomology is included in this category, because many animal diseases can "jump species" and become a human health threat, for example, bovine encephalitis. Medical entomology also includes scientific research on the behavior, ecology, and epidemiology of arthropod disease vectors, and involves a tremendous outreach to the public, including local and state officials and other stake holders in the interest of public safety. A U.S. Navy medical entomologist identifying insects Medical Entomologists are employed by private and public universities, private industries, and federal, state, and local government agencies, including all three branches of the US military - who hire medical entomologists to protect the troops from infectious diseases that can be transmitted by arthropods. Historically, during wars, more people have died due to insect-transmitted diseases, than to all the battle injuries combined.

Medical entomologists are also hired by chemical companies - to help develop new pesticides which will effectively decrease insect pest populations while simultaneously protecting the health of the public.

Public health entomology has seen a huge surge in interest since 2005, due to the resurgence of the bed bug, Cimex lectularius.

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 Lead does include a good introductory sentence that briefly yet accurately describes what the article entails, however I do think that it could be improved with detail. The lead does not include a brief description of the article contents within the paragraph itself but it does have and content box in the lead that links to each content topic. The lead paragraph does include some introductory information that is not mentioned again in the article like where medical entomologists are employed. I think the lead does a good job introducing but I think it needs more detail about the content sections.

Content[edit]

Guiding questions

Insects of medical importance[edit][edit]

There are many insects (and other arthropods) that affect human health. These arthropods include Diptera, Hemiptera, Thysanoptera, Phthiraptera, and Siphonaptera. They can parasitize, bite, sting, cause allergic reactions, and/or vector disease to humans. insects are good for it can be impossible to know the full impact that insects and other arthropods have on human health, Medical Entomologists worldwide are working to combat the known effects in order to improve public health.

Personal Pests[edit][edit]

Personal pests such as Lice, Fleas, Bedbugs, Ticks, Scabies mites, may vector pathogens. They are hematophagous, meaning they feed on the blood of their host. Nearly all personal pests can be transmitted to an uninfected host with prolonged exposure to an infected host. Lice, fleas, bedbugs, and ticks are known as ectoparasites. Ectoparasites live on the skin of their host. They have adaptations that allow them to access the nutrients inside of the host, such as methods to penetrate skin, insert digestive enzymes and a gut microbiome that can digest the nutrients received from the host. While these ectoparasites feed, the transfer of fluids may transmit diseases such as typhus, plague, and Lyme disease. It is also suspected that bedbugs may also be vectors of hepatitis B.

Scabies mites cannot be classified as ectoparasites. The mite that causes scabies, Sarcoptes scabei also known as the itch mite, burrows into the skin of its host making it an endoparasite. The act of S. scabei living in the skin and the allergic response to the parasite is the condition known as scabies.

The Housefly[edit][edit]

The housefly is a very common and cosmopolitan species which transmits diseases to man. The organisms of both amoebic and bacillary dysenteries are picked up by flies from the faeces of infected people and transferred to clean food either on the fly's hairs or by the fly vomiting during feeding. Typhoid germs may be deposited on food with the fly's faeces. The house fly cause the spread of yaws germs by carrying them from a yaws ulcer to an ordinary sore. Houseflies also transmit poliomyelitis by carrying the virus from infected faeces to food or drink. Cholera and hepatitis are sometimes fly-borne. Other diseases carried by houseflies are Salmonella, tuberculosis, anthrax, and some forms of ophthalmia. They carry over 100 pathogens and transmit some parasitic worms. The flies in poorer and lower-hygiene areas usually carry more pathogens. Some strains have become immune to most common insecticides.

The Cockroach[edit][edit]

Cockroaches carry disease-causing organisms (typically gastroenteritis) as they forage. Cockroach excrement and cast skins also contain a number of allergens causing responses such as, watery eyes, rashes, congestion of nasal passages and asthma.

Biting insects[edit][edit]

There are many insects that bite including Mosquitoes, Biting Midges, Sandflies, Black flies, Horse Flies, Stable flies. Through feeding, insects or other arthropod vectors can transmit diseases to humans. Medical Entomologists and other medical professionals have helped to develop vaccines that can prevent humans from contracting some of those diseases. They have also developed ways to prevent the arthropods from biting humans. According to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in May 2018, illnesses caused by insect bites have tripled from 2004 to 2016.

Major insect-borne diseases[edit][edit]

Minor

See also[edit][edit]

  • 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?
  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation[edit]

The article's content is all relevant to the topic of medical entomology, however several of them are brief only stating the insect and the most common symptoms when humans are affected. The information is up to date for the most part. The content could use more information such as where these insects primarily live and how many people they affect per year or some way to compare them and their effect on the human population.The article does not deal with an equity gap. I do think that this topic is under appreciated more than under represented, because it seems like there are plenty of sources and people that talk about this.

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 article is definitely neutral tone. Luckily this topic has slim to no controversial points. The article is definitely factual and informational as opposed to entertaining or exciting in any way. I wish this article included some specific famous medical entomologists. There are no viewpoints that are unrepresented except for maybe the effect that we as humans have on the insects and not just vice versa. There is no persuasion in this article.

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?
  • Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation[edit]

All sources are reliable and current, however I don't think there's enough citing going on. There are several content sections without a single citation. The facts that are cited are good, but not every fact has a source to it. The sources used are very thorough, but the information provided is pretty minimal and to the point. The links do work in the sources.

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 written for what's there, but it definitely needs additions for it to be considered usable in my opinion. The article is not thorough nor comparative at all. It's broken down to where it's easy to read and easy to find what you're looking for but there's not enough information in each content paragraph and there's no good way to compare the lethality and habitats of each relevant insect since that information is not provided. There are no grammatical errors that I noticed.

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]

There are 2 images used in this article. They are both of good quality and relevant to the topic, and strategically placed. One picture has a decent caption, the other photo has a an insects scientific name as the caption. The photos are both correctly cited and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. I think this article could have used a lot more media since there are so many interesting insects that are rare and unheard of. Pictures could do wonders for this article. Perhaps a graph or chart of some sort would have been useful as well for comparison.

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]

The talk page consists of some external links created by the first or main editors, suggestions, and evaluations. The external links are for further informations provided by the writer. The suggestions and the evaluations both agree that the article could use more detail but that it has the benefit of being concise and unbiased. I chose a topic that is off base from class but I don't think it differs much from how we discuss without bias in class. There is no people involved in this article which is a big difference from in class and how we study specific people's ideas and thoughts, this article is just the facts without the people.

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]

The article is okay. It was honestly really good the first time I read it, but then once I started evaluating it I realized how much it was lacking. The article lacks detail in every sense. The article not once mentions a relevant scientist by name. The article has 2 pictures total when it could have one for almost every content section since most of them emphasized a specific insect. The article would have been better in my opinion if it went more in depth about like 3 insects and their diseases and the history and long term effects we've seen. Instead we have a bunvh of insects and diseases mentions but very vague information to cover it. I think what's on the article itself is good but it needs a lot more.

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:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:HUER00/Evaluate_an_Article&oldid=985297549"