User:Bettchlk618/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: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

''I decided to evaluate this article because the topic it covers is interesting to me. I learned about CCHF in another class recently and it was fascinating to read about.''

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 for the article I've chosen is written fairly well. It includes an introductory topic sentence, although it is extremely short and maybe could be written more eloquently. That statement can apply to the whole Lead, as sentences are rather choppy throughout. The Lead includes briefs descriptions of the articles major sections and doesn't include any information that isn't discussed in more detail later in the article. Overall, the Lead is very concise. My biggest critique, besides the sentence length/structure, is the use of only one source.''

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
''All the content covered in the article was relevant and didn't seem to be missing any content/ have content out of place. All sections and sources seemed up-to-date except for the "Outbreaks" section under "Epidemiology". Many of the outbreaks, especially the most recent occurrences, haven't been followed up on. At least not with adequate sources. I would say that this article addresses a historically underrepresented topic as CCHF is a neglected tropical disease. By virtue of being a NTD, CCHF hasn't been getting notable attention and therefore is still a major problem in endemic areas.''

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 very well balanced and has a neutral tone overall. No bias is presented, no persuasion included, and all viewpoints seem equally represented.''

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
''Overall, the sources and references in this article were pretty good. There were a wide vareity of sources from varying authors, most of which were up to date (within the past 5 years). There were a few sources here or there that were older than that, but they were the minority. The sources were thorough and *most* of the facts were backed up by reliable references. There were a few sections that lacked in this regard, the "Epidemiology" section especially, but most were well cited. The links all seem to work.''

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
''This article was very well-organized. Each section had relevant sub-sections and nothing seemed awkward or out of place. I didn't catch any grammatical or spelling errors, but I did find sections that weren't written the best. For example, as previously stated, the intro was very choppy and the writing style felt a little juvenile. Overall, however, it was well-put-together.''

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
''The article contains two images and a graphic. Each image/media reresentation is well captioned and fits well with the topic of the article and each section they're paired with. The graphic, especially, helps to enhance the virology of CCHF; a topic that can be hard to visuailze. Each image is credited to its original source, so everything seems to be adhereing to copyright regulations. Everything is very asthetically pleasing, as 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
''A majority of the converstations going on behind the scenes were about sources, whether that be incorrect information, adding citations, fixing citations, etc. The article is rated C-Class and has been marked as High-Importance. The "Epidemiology" section mainly focuses on the geographical distribution of CCHF and the various outbreaks that have happened throughout the years. There are no analyses like risk, incidence rate, or morbitiy/mortality rate; at least not in this section, where it probably should be.''

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, this article is a relatively good one. It has lots of information that would be helpful to anyone lookig for casual information on this topic and is organized in a very concise and clean way. It could use a bit of rewriting in certain places and needs to be updated and cited more thoroughly in some sections, but other than that it would surfice if one needed a quick question answered. As fas as article completeness, I'd say it's halfway there. Certain sections are better than others, to be sure. The sections that are lacking aren't exactly underdeveloped; I'd say they lean closer to poorly developed. Expansion on certain topics could definately bring this article up from a C-Class.''

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: