User:Hnlaruffa/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Vaccines and autism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it pertains to the topic of our class, and we've previously discussed research into causes of certain disabilities.

Evaluate the article
The lead section gives a very concise overview of the topic, and establishes the lack of relationship between vaccinations and autism, however I'm not sure if the article title is appropriate based on the lead section. The lead section is about the lack of relationship between vaccines and autism, so it may be necessary to change the article title to reflect the lack of relationship. The lead section also does not give an overview or mention the sections of the article to come,

This article does a good job of presenting the facts contained through research, however it could be better organized. The heading "claimed mechanisms" doesn't provide any explanation or context of what that means, or the subsections of the article that follow it.

The sources and references in this article mostly all date back to the early 2000's to around 2010. More recent research and studies should be conducted to keep the article up to date on recent scientific discoveries and advances.

I don't see any grammatical errors in the article, but it could be better organized. The lead section should be edited to provide and introduction to the sections and information to be covered later in the article, and the subsequent sections should be organized according to that structure.

There articles has strengths and weaknesses, I believe one of its main faults is organization and clarity of the subject, and I think with a little reworking of the lead section and reorganization of the subsequent sections, the article and its content will be easier to read and comprehend by users. It has a strong resource and research base, but it could be updated with more information. The talk page of this article already has suggestions from other users on how to improve the sources. I think the article does a good job of presenting research findings that demonstrate the lack of relationship between vaccines and autism, however the overall tone of the article seems persuasive at times, with the lead sentence refuting a point, and the subsequent evidence organized in a way that seems to support that rebuttal. With better organization the overall tone of this article will become more neutral and unbiased, with a focus on the facts and research. Let the evidence speak for itself!