User:Gfullller/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Antimalarial medication.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Antimalarial medication was an article on the list of C-Class Microbiology articles, and I have recently learned of these on my international trips.

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

The lead does include an introductory sentence that gives a good overview of the article's topic, but it's a run on sentence and could easily be split up into smaller sentences for easier readability. The leading section is only one paragraph, so it requires any user wanting to know more information to read the entire thing, and even so it's hard to read with errors and additional run on sentences. It also misses overviewing some of the main sections of the article, and adds information that could just be added in the body sections. It overall is overly detailed, messy, and should be made more concise for ease of reading. There also seem to be words just missing from sentences.

'''Content '''The article's content is relevant to its topic, but it seems to contain a lot of irrelevant information. There's a lot of extra information about each type of medication, and while this could be interesting, it's not presented in a way that's understandable or enriching for the reader. As well as the extra information, there seems to be some lack of information as well- some of the medicine types are discussed in detail, but others have sentences missing words. The sections other than the medications section are also missing any worthwhile content. The information that's cited seems up to date for the most part, but hardly any of the article is cited anyway so it's not possible to tell how much of it is recent.

Tone and Balance

One thing the article does seem to do well is have a neutral perspective- it appears to be factual, without any biases. No viewpoints seem over or underrepresented- although some topics are not thoroughly discussed. There seems to be no persuasion or arguments of any sort.

Sources and References

This article is very much lacking in citations. There's little actual citation and almost all [citation needed], which makes the page extremely unreliable and not credible. It seems as though the person or people who wrote this just typed out information from memory, and put no effort in to back up their claims. The sources that are cited do tend to be recent though- most occurring within a decade. They are also relatively diverse, with some articles and books and sources from multiple different cultures and viewpoints. The links are working as well.

Organization and Writing Quality

For me, this article was very hard to wrap my head around. It is not concise- it has many run on sentences and misplaced information- it's not written in a way that makes much sense or is engaging. The page could be much more interesting with better organization of information and better layout, and improvements in grammar. There are a lot of missing words in sentences as well, which adds to the confusion.

Images and Media

There are no images or media whatsoever in this article, which makes the huge blocks of text even worse to read through. This page would definitely benefit from other media being added.

Talk page discussion

There does seem to be some interesting discussion on how to add to the article, and some of the concerns that have been expressed in this review have also been noted on the talk page. There's definitely possibility for growth of this article.

Overall impressions

According to Wikipedia, the article has multiple issues, and I can't help but agree- this page is overall just very hard to read. It's clearly incomplete; missing words, punctuation, references and information, and needs a lot of work to even be readable. Trying to get through this page hurt my head, and the imbalance of information is unfortunate. However, there's a lot of potential for growth, and this article does have some strengths; there's a lot of information, and the sources that are cited are diverse and credible.