User:Celebrations18!/Evaluate an Article

{| class="wikitable" Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:
 * Evaluate an article

Lead section
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * 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? (It shouldn't.) No it does not.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, this article does not focus on specific populations getting the chicken pox.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes, but I do not think there are minority viewpoints.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Some are, but some are from the 1990s.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) No, there has not been a recent outbreak of the chicken pox.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? They are discussing what scarring from chicken pox rashes looks like.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Rated well.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? The article does not gone into as many molecular details about the virus like we would study in class. For instance, there is no mentioned of the structure of the chicken pox vaccine.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? Good.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is very to the point.
 * How can the article be improved? I think they have covered this topic very well. Although, they could mention some molecular stuff about the chicken pox. Maybe the statistics over the spread in recent years.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? It is well-developed.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

Which article are you evaluating?
Chickenpox

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because we are studying viruses and I find the chicken pox virus to be interesting. We have not covered this virus in depth yet in class, but I do know that it is a very common virus that affects people today. And, there is debate over the chicken pox vaccine and if shingles are worth preventing.

Evaluate the article
Overall, this was a very informative article about the chicken pox. The opening section was concise and to the point. This is because it gave a definition of the chicken pox that covers the basic information people want to know when they search the chicken pox. The content was not bias and covered a good amount of subsections on the chicken pox. As for the sources, there were a few sources that seem to be outdated and not up to date with today’s technology. However, the majority of sources were credible and recent. When looking at the talk page, there were a few discussion points about the chicken pox scabbing and comparing different strains. However, there is a discussion post about weed which is not relevant to the chicken pox topic and it not appropriate. Despite this, I was impressed with the article.