User:GardOU/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article about Disease

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It has an obvious relation to the course material. The course is title plagues and people, so I have found an article about disease.

Evaluate the article
The lead section is solid. The first sentence is to the point, and the first paragraph gives a good understanding of disease. The rest of the lead section is more detailed and more in depth. Perhaps maybe a little bit too much information for a lead, but it's very solid.

The article absolutely covers all important aspects. It covers everything from types of diseases, stages, types, and even how society and culture has been impacted by disease. For less important topics, there is a brief description and a link to another article that goes into more depth about the topic, so not too much time is wasted on it. The article doesn't really seem to be missing anything, as far as I can tell.

The article is mainly neutral. I did find one claim that I believe to be factual, but can come across as biased and is marked as missing a citation. However, there are no fringe viewpoints or any obvious cases of persuasion.

As mentioned previously, there is at least one case where a section has the [citation needed] label with it, but the article as a whole does a great job with citations. There are a total of 43 existing citations and also several external links. Many citations do appear to originate from official government sources and/or reliable medical sources like medical dictionaries, textbooks, and databases. Most sources have been from the last 15 years or so, with most being between 2010 and 2020, but I did find two sources that originated before the year 2000.

The article is well written and very well organized. It is easy to read and understand, and it broken up into categories that makes sense. I did not notice and spelling or grammatical errors.

Yes, the article includes 4 images, all relating in some way to the article. They are very well captioned and two even include links. They are laid out in a nice way, and all but one are public domain photos. The one photo that is not public domain is original work from an assumed editor.

The article is listed as a class-2 vital article in science. It is part of 4 different WikiProjects. The article does not go as in depth about specific diseases as we do in class, but goes more in depth about the topic of disease as a whole. There is even a to-do list. mentioning adding information about diseases in plants and animals in order to remove a bias that the article talks only about humans.

Overall, I think it is a great article. It is well organized, easy to understand, has good images, and avoids citation issues. It has a sense of direction and a current project to focus on. One weakness may be that the talk page did not seem super active, and there are some passages still needs a citation. I would improve it by adding necessary citations, and getting started on the project in the talk page. I would conclude that the article is well-developed.