User:Hbl711/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of virology

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 because I am in a virology class this semester and it pertains to what I am studying.

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 introductory sentence does a good job describing what the article is going to be about. The first lead paragraph gives a well written broad overview of the History of virology. There is no information in the lead section that is not mentioned in the rest of the article, however, the lead section could be a bit more concise.

Content: The content of the article is highly relevant and since it is an article about history it's about as up to date as it can be. Nothing in the article seems out of place and as far as I know it includes the most important parts of virus history. However, it does not deal with any equity gaps.

Tone and Balance: The article sustains a very neutral and scientific tone throughout. Since the article is only presenting historical facts there is no alternative agenda being pushed here.

Sources and References: The writer thoroughly sites many trustworthy sources, such as Oxford University Press or the Yale Journal. However many of the sources are older, closer to the early 2000s. The spectrum of authors is diverse and many different voices are included. All the links that were tried worked and led to the correct sources.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is easy to read and well organized. It is easy to find the information you are looking for and there are few, if any, grammatical errors.

Images and Media: The chosen images are on topic and help to engage the reader. Proper credit is given to the original owners of each image as well.

Talk Page discussion: There are only 3 posts on the talk page. The few posts are small corrections to the article. The article is of interest on a few WikiProjects where it is rate B-class.

Overall Impression: The article's overall status is good in my opinion. The articles strengths are it's neutrality. The article could be improved through the use of more recent sources and a more concise lead section. In my opinion the article is complete.