User:Ccn63/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: (link) Virus
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen this article because I am greatly interested in the microbial sciences.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * No

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, also gives more info for other sub-fields that relate to viruses
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, looking at the history of edits as well it is very active.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Possibly some more information can be included in the section about its role in evolution.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, everything written is of a neutral standpoint.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think one underrepresented viewpoint is how they are transmitted from one person to another and what makes it so pathogenic. It is only briefly mentioned in the lead.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I feel like it would, there are 274 referenced sources of information, that would be a lot to individually check. However, the very first reference is an article posted by National Geographic but, written by only one author. So, the publisher is creditable but the article itself may have a few biased things. To combat this though, the talk page on this Wikipedia article is continually trying to reduce word count that is not relaying any useful information and adding more sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources are written by multiple authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links I have checked work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes very well-written
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Very few, this article is highly reviewed. Looking at the talk page occasionally you can see people addressing these minor errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes the lead and contents are accurate and describes the layout of the whole page.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, they all also have links to the respected authors.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, especially the ones that are located in the section where they are talking about the general structure of the viruses.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * They are kind of random, many people are contributing and they are basically just talking about what they think needs to be added to the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is a FA-Class. Yes, it is featured in many WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This article includes many other different resources and topics that relate to viruses.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Featured article
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Organization, there is a lot of useful information in this article and I feel if it was not organized as well as it is then the information would not be helpful at all.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * As I mentioned before I think elaborating on how they are transmitted and giving information on how we are working to determine how a virus is pathogenic.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I think the article is excellent, as it should be being a top page of Wikipedia.

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: