User:Filmfanatic88/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Germ theory of disease

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
This is a subject which I will be enhancing by writing my own Wikipedia article. This article is quite broad, which is fine for a general overview, but I find it to be lacking in terms of mid to late 19th century content (which is when we began solidifying our current theory of disease). The germ theory of disease is a subject I am quite passionate about. I'm also well-versed in my knowledge of its primary "characters." My article will be the story leading up to the theory through the revelations of important figures in the mid to late 19th century. There is a lot more to the contributions of the people listed in the germ theory's overall Wiki page. Many of these figures have their own page, but their pages are not just dedicated to their germ theory revelations, they are biographical along with other contributions they made to science. My article (it's a sandbox draft currently and not live) User:Filmfanatic88/Key 19th Century Figures in the Discovery and Development of the Germ Theory of Disease is dedicated to these figures' contributions to the germ theory of disease.

Evaluate the article
Lead

The lead does a good job of describing what the germ theory of disease is, but I find the second sentence to be unnecessary. That sentences simply says "germs affect disease." In science it is customary to say how something affects something else. The next two sentences say that germs "invade humans" and other organisms. Then the next sentences talk about how germs "cause" disease. This is why I think the second sentence needs changing. There are causes and effects or positive or negative associations. The word "affect" can be meaningless if not used correctly. The lead also outlines the time periods discussed which makes me realize I should probably put a better breakdown of the mid 19th century versus the late 19th century in my own lead. This lead starts with definition then gives a quick summary of some specific scientific work and the timeline of that work.

Content

The content is quick and concise, but does not pay full homage to the work people accomplished to get us to this theory. The most alarming issue is that the article does not even mention Louis Pasteur's work on immunizations. The idea of giving someone a form of a disease so the body recognizes it, is a major piece of germ theory. This is why we get flu immunizations. Our body recognizes and attacks the "dead virus" so it is prepared for the the real thing by creating antibodies against that "germ." I'm also shocked it doesn't mention Edward Jenner who used a dairymaid's lesions from cowpox because he heard dairymaids didn't get smallpox. He then put parts of those lesions into a young boy who felt ill for a few days and then was fine. This protected people from getting smallpox, but there were very few volunteers at first since it was a scary new concept. As far as equity, the miasma theory was held for a long time because those in Europe blamed the poor for illness. They said poor people caused bad air and this held the theory for a long time. Those of high status refused to believe they could be carriers of disease. Instead they called indigents disease spreaders and blamed them. Also, Semmelweis was a Hungarian Jewish man who people believe was heavily criticized based on his ethnic and cultural background. Though I did not speak on this in my article, you can find it in many sources about him.

Tone and Balance This article has no opinion-based content and is simply giving an overview of germ theory. The article doesn't discuss how hated the theory was at first and the difficulty of getting not just everyday people, but also the medical establishment to believe in it. This being left out concerned me until I looked at the bottom and saw there is a Wiki article titled Germ theory denialism.

Sources and References

Looking through the references at the bottom of the page, they were all peer reviewed journals, university library sites, or museum articles. These are the sources I have been using for my own article. The only concern is there were large chunks of sentences with no citing. This must mean the last sentence with the citation is where everything came from. In my article I am purposely finding multiple reference s on the same person and citing at least every two sentences and at most three shorter sentences. I picked this up from writing research manuscript s.

Organization and Writing Quality

The organization is in order of time period with a short blurb about the figures of those time periods. My main concern is that the article doesn't conclude on the publications that finally used the term germ and the theses and works that figures like Pasteur published. Each of the figures in my article I try and tie to the actual theory through their writings or their revelations being celebrated later. For instance, I quote Florence Nightingale's writing in the 1883 medical dictionary where she uses the term "germ" for the first time. This article needs to tie everything together at the end of each person or segment as a since it is the official germ theory article. Honestly, I may edit this one some along with writing my own.

Images and Media

This article only contained a few pictures. There are plenty of articles more pleasing to the eye. From a design standpoint, the article could use a few more pictures of relevant people or events. For my article I made sure to show what the person looked like and another photo such as part of their work or a commemorative statue.

Talk Page

The talk page has not been used since 2008. I saw that someone wanted to put Ignaz Semmelweis in the article, so it seems I am not the only one concerned with lack of representation of certain figures. However, someone may start a page and hope that others will contribute. The intent may be to start and let editor s finish the work. There were some disagreements over the term "theory" and "proven." One person said if nobody fixed some issues he was going to completely change the page. All of this was back in 2007 and 2008. It is only rated at a C-level. I agree with this rating because it means there are pieces missing and has much room for improvement.

Overall

This topic is extremely important to medical history and as stated above there are people, writings, and events left out that deserve to be on the page. There are supplemental pages and I believe my article will help fill in some of those gaps if it gets published on the platform. The most concerning lack of information is inoculation and the fact Louis Pasteur's section does not have one mention of an inoculation. The simple definition of the theory is acceptable and the lead information is solid.