User:TheOneCheese/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?

Virology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose to evaluate this article, because I'm majoring in medical microbiology and I plan on getting a job in the field of virology. I believe that a good understanding of virology is crucial to understanding how to prevent future disease outbreaks and developing vaccines. Evaluating this article will also be good practice for evaluating future articles that focus on the medical or biological field.

Evaluate the article

Lead Section: The lead is concise and covers all of the broad points of virology. It explains what virology is, a bit of its history, how it's studied, who studies it, etc. I'd say the lead section is just about perfect.

Content: The content is well covered without leaning too much into one topic of virology over the other. The article covers the history of virology, different research methods and how they've developed over time, what virology does for society, etc. and without any unecessary information. The content of the article is up to date and was recently re-written in 2022 to be more concise.

Tone and Balance: The article is written from a completely neutral point of view and doesn't try to persuade the reader in any direction. The article simply states the facts, gives a brief explanation (when specific research methods or tools are being discussed), and then moves on to the next topic.

Sources and References: Most of the sources and references are up to date although some are quite out dated (published in 2005 or 2007). However, the information from the outdated sources simply hasn't been advanced past what they have already established, so there isn't much need to update them. The sources have been written by all sorts of authors from different periods history in regards to virology with different qualifications and backgrounds. Overall, the sources are credible and diverse.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is broken down into different sections of virology, such as history, research methods, the goal of virology, etc. and is easy to follow. There are no typos that I could find, however, some of the sentences seem a little out of order. Specifically, the last sentence of the leading section should be moved to the top or re-written, because it's not a good conclusion sentence for the leading section.

Images and Media: There are a good amount of images without it feeling too crowded. There is typically an image accompaning every new section (an image depicting the "founder" of virology, an image depicting an electron microscope, etc.) It's all laid out very neat and each image has a citation.

Talk page discussion: The talk page is a bit strnage as most of the conversation about virology is actually in the Virus Talk Page. However, they discussed how they might combine the virology and the virus wikipedia articles since a lot of the information was restated and they came to the conclusion that they should keep both, but re-write them to be more congruent and to build off of each other. It is a B-rated article in wikipedia and is apart of the viruses wikiproject.

Overall Impressions: Overall the article is pretty good, but the writing could be cleaned up a little bit and reorganized. The sources and media are excellent and shouldn't be changed. Id'd say a B rating from wikipedia is pretty accurate and the article is still being developed, so I'm confident that the article will be perfect with just a little more work.