User:ScienceRules1/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

The Epidemiology of Measles

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose this article to evaluate because the way that diseases are spread through populations is an important understanding to have when working in public health careers. As of recently, cases of measles has increased due to many underlying factors and so it is important that its page is up to date and accurate. This article is currently rated C-class in information but also high in importance.

Evaluate the article

The lead section of this article begins with who the virus affects and how it affects human immunity. This section is a good length and is also informative of the recent increases in diagnoses. However, the beginning does not focus on the basics such as it being a virus or how a person becomes affected. The starting portion also does not include a short coverage of what the below sections will entail and more makes a broad summary of important facts.

The content of the article is relevant to measles and covers a broad range of topics. The incidence and US outbreaks portions are the largest by far in the body. I did notice that the body only covers information on the incidence and outbreaks of measles, and is missing portions about symptoms, treatments, and history. The outbreak section covers many countries in very little detail, except for the United States, which contains many large paragraphs. The content could use more up-to-date information if available.

Overall the article writes generally neutral, and covers many viewpoints of topics. The tone is also very basic and gives specific facts with citations attached. Although, the article could use more coverage of how virus affects various populations and how government organizations may not hold enough resources at a given time.

The sources and references could benefit from a review of the article, as I saw many areas that stated something and then did not attach a citation to make that connection. Furthermore, many of these sources are outdated and would benefit from an addition of recent resources. Most cited material appears to be from secondary sources and approved resources such as worldwide government information. Headings and the breaking up of information could be of use to make the article easier to understand. Condensing information with sections only a sentence long or adding information to those section would help to fill out the page and better understanding. Content in the articles is straightforward, but jumps topics at times to things that are not later covered in the body. The images provided add context to the information in the body and assists with the understanding of its localities.

The talk page of this article has some history from a few years ago, but the most recent edit was from November of 2022 which may warrant new edits. The added information to each edit is informative and gives other Wiki users a sense of why the edit was made. Overall, the article is informative about certain topics but left me slightly confused and wanting more information. The body needs more information about other topics and a condensing of the incidence and US portions.