User:Ehk713/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: Attenuated vaccine
 * I chose to evaluate this article since vaccines are a current focus in the media and and the article is rated start-class and high-importance.

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?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes - the lead mentions how attenuation makes infectious agents harmless or less virulent but this is not mentioned in the rest of the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is concise and contains a good first sentence but does not give a brief description of the major sections. The lead should be expanded to include that information

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Somewhat - the most recent source is from 2019 but many sources are from the 2000-2013
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The article is missing an in-depth description of how attenuated vaccines function. The article could also be strengthened by comparing attenuated vaccines to other types of vaccines (e.g. inactivated).
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No

Content evaluation
The content that the article contains is all relevant and somewhat up to date but there is not much content. The article needs to be expanded.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is very balanced and neutral. It is based almost solely on scientific facts and explanation and there is not bias towards a specific position or viewpoint.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Somewhat - some sources are strong secondary sources but other are primary sources or come from less academic sources (e.g. websites)
 * Are the sources current?
 * Somewhat - the most recent source is from 2019 but the majority of sources are from 2000-2013
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Somewhat - there seems to be both female and male authors and some range in the country of the articles
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The article strongly requires citations to be added; two of the main sections contain no citations at all. It would also be useful to update some of the older sources with more current sources.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes - the article is well-written; it is clear, concise and easy to read
 * 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?
 * Somewhat - the article is broken down into good sections that reflect the major points but the order of the sections could be rearranged (e.g. examples near the end rather than the first section) and advantages and disadvantages could be put into one section

Organization evaluation
Overall, the article is well organized.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
The article could be strengthened by the addition of an image.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The recent conversations (since 2016) are the proposal of a merger of the "live vector vaccine" and "attenuated vaccine" articles which was completed in 2020 and removing the smallpox vaccine since it is not attenuated.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated start-class, high-importance
 * Part of WikiProjects Viruses, Medicine and Veterinary medicine
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is very little discussion on the talk page. Only one of the talk page posts had a response, all others had no response.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page for this article is not very well utilized.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall, the article contains a strong start but it requires more information to be added.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The information is neutral and not biased.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article requires citations to be added and could be improved by adding a stronger description of how the vaccines function and a comparison to other vaccine types.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say the article is underdeveloped.

Overall evaluation
The article is a strong start but requires further development.

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: