User:Ismaray Ruiz/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Coronavirus disease 2019: Coronavirus disease 2019
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because of the current global pandemic as well as the ethical issues that will surely arise from this pandemic because of food shortages, vaccines, resources, etc.

Lead

 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The article starts off by explaining exactly what the coronavirus is as well as which strand of the virus, as their are multiple, is affecting people in 2019-2020. The lead is a short summary of what the article will be getting into detail, explaining how the virus is spread, how people can try to limit the spread of this virus, the World Health Organization declaring it a pandemic (all things that the article goes further into depth later on). This lead seems to cover all its basis, presenting information that is present later in the article, on top of that it is very concise, but not to the point that it has little to no details. It has just enough details to warn browsers about the severity of the virus as well as to how to combat against it without having to go further into the article.

Content

 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
I believe all the topics in the Content section are accurately put and do belong. They're all up to date as well. My only issue is that the article, towards the end, has multiple fatality rates charts, yet there is no Content section specifically for Mortality Rates.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Because this article isn't really looking at sides, just facts, there is no persuasion or viewpoints per say. Because most of the facts are coming from medical journals and multiple governments from across the world they are neutral in nature, sticking to medical facts and statistics and numbers.

Sources and References

 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Most of the sources, if not all, are current, from the end of 2019 to March 2020. I checked about 15 links and they all seemed to work, however there are 270 links, so it is possible some lead nowhere. Most sources do seem reliable and credible and do offer relevant information on the topic of coronavirus as well, whether that be on government intervention or vaccines, etc.

Organization

 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article is broken down amazingly. For instance, I personally wanted more information on how to avoid or prevent the virus and the article had a very easy to fine heading titled "Prevention" that gave me the info I wanted to know. Because of all the medical terms, it is a bit difficult to understand, but the article does provide numerous hyperlinks so with a quick clink, my knowledge on the subject expands. There were a few grammatical errors here and there, but very scarcely. As this article is being updated a lot, it makes sense for it to have a few grammar mistakes here and there.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
At the beginning of the article, there is an image of the internal portion of a person. Strands branch out of certain areas with a small explanation as to how the coronavirus affects that area and at what severity. I think this is a great image to have as it alerts people as to what they should look out for in the off chance they have been in contact with the virus. There are numerous other images and media charts that are scattered throughout the article that better help the understanding of the topic. From the few images I checked, they seemed to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Checking the talk page

 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
The article is rated as a level 5 vital article under C-Class with multiple B-Class WikiProjects interested in it. As far as I can see, most conversations are about confusion when using images and copyright infringement. One conversation in particular that caught my eye was about a Flatten curve image. The user that found it was looking to see if it could be used as well as its owners. Two sources affirmed that although they could not find the creator, it wasn't violating any copyrights. One of these users, grew agitated at the initial user that supplied the graph, later on apologizing and stating "apologies for being snarky here earlier... you caught me at a bad time!" Later on this same graph is shown again, many people stating that it does not belong in the article even if it follows regulations because of the terminology used within it.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
I do believe it is developed, not perfect, but developed. It hits the key factors concerning the virus from the beginning, which is usually what most browsers tend to read before quickly moving on. I do think better explaining some medical terms would help the article. Sure they provide hyperlinks, but how many browsers will actually click those to find out what it is that the article is speaking about? For overall status, I'd give the article a 7/10. It's informative, but could use a bit of cleaning up and maintenance.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: