User:Dennyslimon10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Influenza

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article to evaluate because I felt like I would not be too in the dark about what I was reading since I have read about influenza before and have some understanding about it. I also feel this article should be accurate and precise since so many people actually do end up getting the flu yearly. A lot of people turn to the internet to look up information about viruses and diseases including on Wikipedia therefore the Wikipedia articles should provide accurate information for the readers. Considering influenza is one of the most common viruses it is very important this article is valid. My preliminary impression of the article was that it is a very in depth and well organized article. It has a lot of thorough information on influenza and I even learned a few things I did not know before. The subheadings, links, and pictures all seem to be accurate and very helpful also.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

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.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise, includes just the right amount of information for a good overview.

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.

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. All the viewpoints seem to have a balanced portion.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? Yes.
 * 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? Yes.
 * 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, from what I saw they all seem to be accurate, usable sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The 8-10 links I checked did work.

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, I did not notice any.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, it is very well organized.

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? Most of the conversations are about updating formation from new found information that has been discovered, such as COVID.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a featured article and it is part of many Wikiprojects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It does not differ.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status? It is a level-3 vital article, rated FA- class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Once again, it is also a featured article.
 * What are the article's strengths? The article's strength are that it is very accurate, long, and detailed.
 * How can the article be improved? The article can be improved by perhaps including more images and/or more up to date images such as the at home flu tests that are now available.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is very well-developed. I genuinely feel like it is one of the best Wikipedia articles I have ever seen or read. The article and its organization and information show how much time and research has been put into it to make it the most accurate and precise.