User:Crobial/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Germ theory denialism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in microbiology, and don't know much about the history or details of germ theory denialism. It's an important topic because germ theory is a major theory that structures the way all major societies currently work, at least in a context around health and disease. I think the article is well written, accurate, and supplies a neutral point of view while also explaining the fringe nature of the denialist point of view. (Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Evaluate the article
I think the lead section is well written, everything that is touches on is expanded upon at least a little within the article. It is clear and concise. The content is relevant. It is sufficiently up-to-date, as the nature of the denialism is based on a theory that is hundreds of years old. It might be improved by explaining exactly how old germ theory is, but this is not entirely necessary. Everything belongs, and it does not appear to deal with an equity gap. The article is neutral and balanced, but accurately states that the denialist theory goes against the vast majority of scientists and doctors. I think the only major improvement that could be made is to adjust some of the sources. The first source, in particular, is from a blog. While the blog is written from a medical doctor, this is not an unbiased or verifiable source. Additionally, there is a source titled "quackwatch", which supplies the connection of chiropractors to similar denialist theories. It is an important subtopic addition to the article, but also doesn't appear to be an unbiased source. Instead, perhaps the scientific studies cited on that website could be referenced.

The talk page revealed a lot of related concepts and arguments that weren't explored in the published article. The article is rated C-class for low importance, and is a part of two wiki projects for Skepticism and Alternative Views.

I think overall, the quality of the sources could be improved and the article could be expanded upon still. It is well-written.