User:Aced 24/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: Zaire ebolavirus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it is very relevant to my virology class, and I am interested in learning more about the Ebola virus.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the article does include an introductory sentence that clearly describes Ebola virus and states the genus it is a part of. The lead includes a brief description of the structure and genome of Ebola virus, but not a brief description of all the article's major sections. I feel that the lead provides the information that it needs to without being overly detailed.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content in the article seems to all be very relevant to the topic. The content also appears to be up to date minus a few pieces of information that are cited by some older research articles. I feel that there is not any important or relevant pieces of information missing in the content, and the content that is there seems to be very relevant. The only content that could be added is more information on the vaccine developed for Ebola virus. The article states the date the vaccine was approved, but doesn't go into a lot of detail about how it was created. The article could possibly add some detail about the vaccine itself.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article appears to be written from a very neutral standpoint as it should. I feel that there shouldn't be many biases surrounding this topic, and the article doesn't include any biases in my eyes. Once again, I feel no positions were taken in the article and only data relevant to explaining the topic was used.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

For the most part, the article is cited very well. However, there are a few paragraphs that need citations, but there are already "citation needed" flags in those areas. In particular, the second paragraph under the "replication" topic did not include any citations. However, it has been marked that citations are needed in that paragraph. For the most part, the sources seem to be very reliable and recent articles. However, there are a few that could be considered outdated such as two research articles published in 1977. However, this information very well could be reliable and still true today. There seems to be a very wide range of authors and a diverse spectrum of research articles used. All the links I clicked on directed me to the original article.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

I felt that this article was very well written and straight to the point. I did not notice any grammatical errors. Some sentences felt like they could be rearranged to be easier to read, but there was very few of these sentences. I felt that the article was organized well. If I could change one thing, I would put the "History and Nomenclature" section closer to the beginning of the article rather than towards the end.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

I thought that the colorized SEM picture of Ebola virus itself at the top of the article was a great picture and was very visually appealing. The article did not include too many pictures, but I felt that the pictures that were included were a great addition. Most of the pictures contain captions that explain what they are, but a picture of the protein NPC1 under the entry section could use a caption to better explain its significance with the Ebola virus.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

There was not a lot of conversation going on the talk page. All I could see was a comment letting the editor know that one of the pictures in the article would be the picture of the day, and then another editor just commented on the correct usage of the name "Ebola virus." The article is part of the WikiProject Virus and WikiProject Medicine. We haven't really gotten into Ebola virus in detail in class, but this article obviously goes into a lot of depth pertaining Ebola virus.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

Overall, I thought this was a well-done article. There are only minor things that can be fixed to improve the article. I think the article's organization and clarity are two of its main strengths. The article can be improved by adding a few missing citations and possibly updating a few citations as well. I would say that this article is well-developed.


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * 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: Talk:Zaire ebolavirus