User:IvCh29/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Alternative treatments used for the common cold

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it was rated C-Class. The introductory sentence of the article is too brief and fails to accurately describe and explain the purpose of alternative treatments for the common cold. The lead is very short and more information backed up with scientific evidence is needed. It is not clear in some of the headers’ content whether these alternative treatments have been shown to be beneficial for treating the common cold due to the lack of research, scientific evidence, and reliable citations. In the Zinc header, for instance, the author only states that zinc has been linked to reducing common cold symptoms, but there is no research, data, or supporting evidence. Some of the sources that are cited are also outdated. To provide more accurate and reliable information to Wikipedia users, this article needs more scientific research to back up its claims. Upon reviewing this article, my overall impression is that it needs a lot of improvements and editing, which explains why it has a C-class rating.

Evaluate the article
The Lead Introduction does not properly state a good definition that explains the efficacy or importance of alternative treatments for the common cold. Wikipedia's page is very brief, and more details are needed about each alternative treatment. The content contains spelling errors, which indicates that little attention has been paid to explaining the efficacy of alternative treatments. The page must include updated and new scientific research to support the claims stated in the article to provide readers with reliable content. There are also alternative treatments that are not specifically claimed as being beneficial in treating the cold, so new sources need to be cited to determine whether these alternative treatments are or are not effective. Many of these treatments are based on biased claims made by people who believe in them but have no research to back up their claims. It is important that the article maintains neutrality and is not biased toward one treatment over another.

It is also important to note that many of the sources cited are not current, which is crucial since the page hasn't been kept up-to-date; significant findings could have changed or evolved. There are also some unreliable sources cited in the Wikipedia article. This is further supported by people who have questioned the credibility of the content on the Talk page, saying that many of the sources cited are not reliable and that some research presented in these sources has been withdrawn. Images are related to the content but do not have captions that adequately explain how they relate. Overall, the article is poorly developed, and much improvement is needed. The article is classified as a C-Class article; therefore, it needs updated information about the efficacy of these treatments, more reliable citations, and more neutral statements about which treatments work best. The article should also be well-written with no spelling or grammar errors.