User:Bharatss-SB/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Virus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
As I was looking through the categories within the WikiProject, the microbiology section seemed the most interesting. The group also rated more than 10,000 articles within their category as "stubs," meaning that these lowly rate articles are unfinished, or poorly done, so I thought that they put a lot of effort into evaluating their articles. And also, as there were only 5 in the highest rank, I wanted to see what a good example of a completed article would look like. After navigating to the page where the top 5 articles were, I ended up selected the 'Virus' article as I thought I could connect it back with my understanding of viruses through previous biology classes I have taken, as well as an immunology course I am currently taking.

The article itself is highly relevant to the field of microbiology, and even immunology. It is the first article that comes up when you search "Virus" into Google, and it is the main and Wikipedia article and "most technical" introduction on the site. It is so extensive that it even has a lesser technical introduction on the 'Introduction to viruses' Wikipedia page.

Upon first glance, it can be understood as to why this article is bearing the high standard and ranking it has since it appears to be really well done.

Evaluate the article
When looking at the lead, it is also very well done. It consists of key information regarding viruses, while also mentioning when the first pathogen was identified as a virus (though it would have been nice to know when the word 'virus' first began to be used in literature, since the first discovery mentions how a bacteria-like entity was found infecting tobacco plants - the word virus was not used per se). The lead itself is likely sufficient for most readers looking into the topic. The lead does not exactly mention the contents of the rest of the article, but it does give the reader a quick glimpse of what they will be reading. All information mentioned in the lead is present in the article, and it has the right amount of detail in a concise manner for its topics which has a plethora of information.

Regarding content, the content within the article is all relevant to the topic. It is also very up-to-date as it provides timely information about human-related pandemics and outbreaks. Also, even though is a section titled "Animal viruses," it would be useful to us, as humans, to know about some human-specific viruses as a subsection to that section in the article. This itself would also be one thing that is missing from the content. There is no content that does not belong. The article does seem to follow Wikipedia's equity gaps by including definitions such that the general population can understand some more complex/scientific terms. The article also provides a note at the top indicating that the page is more technical, and a less-technical version is linked near it. The article topics itself does not consist of a majority and minority group, so there is no need for that. But it does address some underrepresented topics, such as archaeal viruses and viruses in aquatic ecosystems.

Throughout its entirety, the article stays neutral, without having an biased opinions. The viewpoints themselves are neutral and contain all relevant information regarding viruses. No viewpoints are harmed and it does not persuade the reader to favour or move away from any position. It provides scientific facts that are backed up by research.

Looking through most of the article, it contains citations on every line almost. After scrolling to a random line in the article (somewhere near the middle), and clicking on its citation to see if the information can be retrieved from that article, I was pleased to see that this was the case. It is likely that all others are also valid. The sources themselves are very thorough, with most references being significant and/or relevant references. Most of the references are also up-to-date, being within the 2000-2021. The sources are diverse consisting of literature reviews from various journals, books, and textbooks. There are also some systematic reviews. The diversity in terms of authors is alright, but could definitely be improved. It would be highly beneficial to talk about viruses from various other countries while exploring their research as well, rather than from a westernized author perspective. Most links checked do indeed work.

The organization of the article was very well done. As it provides relating information in an order that makes the topic easier to understand. There are no grammatical or spelling errors that I can catch. I also highly appreciate that the article is broken into sections as that makes it easier to retrieve the information I need in a more time-friendly manner.

There is a decent amount of pictures, all with captions, while adhering to the copyright regulations. They are also put in the article in a visually appealing way such that there is not too much text and not too many pictures.

The talk page has users, who are interested in the topic, asking about updating citations to be even more up-to-date, and to alter formatting. The article itself is part of the Microbiology WikiProject. As this topic is very scientific, the way Wikipedia discusses it, is fairly similar to the way it is talk about in class, but with a lot more detail and with more necessary information.

The article is really well done, and it is a top-tier Wikipedia article. It's strengths are that it provides a lot of necessary information in a concise and in-depth way without cluttering a lot of images. Additionally, it seems to be updated frequently and has little-to-no errors. I also appreciate the use of different headings and subheadings within the entire article. In terms of weaknesses, it could refer to viruses in different countries, and improve its diversity of references and authors by using references from individuals of non-western countries. The article is definitely complete, and very well-developed.