User:Amandagao01/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: (COVID-19 pandemic in the United States)
 * I chose this article because I want to get a broad overview of Covid-19. I was also considering how up to date this article is, considering this is still an evolving situation and so much data/information is constantly changing.

Lead

 * 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
The lead's introductory sentence indicates that it will cover COVID-19 in the US, and gives a summary of statistical information to date. It continues to provide a broad timeline, touching on points such as death rates and government response that are later covered in the content. Although the lead is very concise and offers a good summary, I wonder if some points are necessary. For example, it talks briefly about the Defense Production Act, which might not be absolutely necessary in a lead as there are additional factors in the Trump administration's response to Covid that are arguably very significant as well (declaring pandemic, beginning vaccine trails, debate over hydroxychloroquine, etc.) Additionally, it mentions social aspects of the pandemic, including the disproportionate effect on Black and Latinx populations and racism towards Asian Americans, but doesn't touch on this later in the content.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
Yes, the content is very relevant and up to date. It gives a timeline, covers responses from many angles (medical, government, private, public, military), and talks about economic and social ramifications in addition to providing statistical information. It addresses underrepresented populations (disparities in cases) in the lead, dealing with one of the equity gaps, but this discussion doesn't carry over significantly in the content. It is very up to date, with the most recent statistics from September 18.

Although it already covers a lot of important content, I think mentioning the focus on frontline/essential workers and response from medical workers could be useful to add.

Tone and Balance

 * 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
The article is pretty neutral, as it focuses on statistical evidence and facts about response/attitude towards COVID in the US. I don't think there are any viewpoints that are over or underrepresented. Even though the pandemic has become so politicized, it still provides claims from opposing viewpoints. For example, the section about hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine includes opposing statements from Trump and the NIH. Additionally, the protests section discusses both anti-lockdown protests and George Floyd protests, and includes public viewpoints towards both. I think the article does a good job of presenting facts and allowing readers to draw their conclusions.

Sources and References

 * 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
Yes, the statements are backed up by current and diverse sources. There's a thorough list of 391 references, as well as many links to other Wikipedia pages throughout the article. The links I tested all worked.

Organization

 * 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
The article is organized very well, offering a good timeline before diving into other topics (responses, impacts, and preparations), and closing with more detailed statistics. I did not catch any grammar or spelling errors. It is fairly long, reflecting the nature of the topic, but is overall clear and pretty concise.

Images and Media

 * 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
Yes, the article includes many images, tables, and graphs that help readers understand the topics and bring the article to life. I think the captions are pretty good, often noting the approximate date, location, and a summary of what is showed.

The images at the top in the right hand bar are great depiction of cases by location, which is really important to understanding the situation. They're also laid out pretty well.

Checking the talk page

 * 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
There's a lot of conversation in the Talk page, about how the article is formatted and updates on statistics/data sources. The longest discussion is about whether or not the lead should indicate that more than 20% of the world's mortality from Covid-19 is in the United States. This shows that the Covid discussion has many angles, and it's hard to make conclusions while things are still changing. It's also part of multiple WikiProjects.

I don't think the article discusses anything differently from in class - it just covers a lot of statistical data and detailed content about responses that isn't the focus of our class.

Overall impressions

 * 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
Overall, the article is pretty well developed and comprehensive n discussing COVID-19 in the US, and is still being updated/edited frequently. It does a great job summarizing the major events through the timeline, and approaches the US response from many angles. It incorporates a variety of data sources, including Hopkins, the CDC, Covid Tracking Project, and more to inform it's statistics section.

I think this article will continue to get better as these events continue unfolding. Going forward, I think it'll be important to consider which sections can be placed in a separate page (like the testing section was). A possibility is separating the US statistics from US responses, as these are both very big topics. It's hard to have just one page discuss everything going on in the US, so having separate articles linked to a main page may be easier to access once even more information becomes available.

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: