User:Atshick/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as it relates to the course I am taking on virology. Infectious canine hepatitis seemed like an interesting topic to explore for a little bit and I would like to know more about it. At first glance this seems like a new article, but written well.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is concise, with a good introductory sentence to introduce the topic. There is no introduction to latter sections in the lead section. The content is up to date and relevant to the topic. The article is written from a neutral perspective and does not persuade any readers. The information is backed up by reputable sources from journal articles and the links in the reference work. There are only five sources listed, which most likely does not describe all the information out there on the topic. More sources from a variety of areas are needed. The article is concise and easy to follow. It is missing organization with no headers or subsections. I would suggest adding sections such as symptoms, history, or treatment. There are no images present to help the article. In the talk pages, there was a content question asked and a suggestion for more information/a picture to be added. The article is under-developed. It needs more information about the virus from different areas and needs to add sections to break up information. Adding images would be helpful. The article is clear and concise but needs more detail. I would suggest adding more references to help expand the article. Overall, the information that is listed is written well.