User:Khash195/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
2009 swine flu pandemic vaccine

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 was interested in a topic related to human health, and because we are currently in a pandemic, I wanted to see what other pandemic-causing diseases have been discussed on Wikipedia. I found an article about the vaccine that was developed for the 2009 swine flu. This is an important article because it details vaccine production, distribution/availability, and adverse effects of the vaccine. It also explains the political climate around the vaccine, which is interesting when compared to the complicated opinions of different groups today about the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. From my first impression, this article appears well-organized and well-written. It makes it easy for the reader to find information, and the long list of references (and variety of references) makes the article seem well-researched and more trustworthy.

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.)

The lead section begins with an informative, concise overview of the topic. The lead briefly touches on the sections that will be covered in other sections of the article, and it doesn't include any information that isn't later discussed. Overall, the article itself is up-to-date, and the most recent updates were done in 2017. The content is relevant to the topic discussed, and it is detailed as well. Although, the article's section on political issues surrounding the vaccine seems unnecessary because political issues and viewpoints are already mentioned earlier in the subsection titled "Production questions and decisions". The content under the "Political issues" section could be moved to relevant areas in the article instead.

The article remains very neutral, so individual viewpoints are not over-represented in the article. Thus there is no noticeable bias in the content presented. Many political viewpoints are introduced regarding the production of the vaccine, but the writing about these perspectives is unbiased. Furthermore, there are over 100 references consisting of peer-reviewed journal articles and newspaper articles. The facts in the article are thoroughly cited, and the sources that are used are current and from diverse sources. The substantial amount of citations and the quality of the references help support the quality of this article.

As a whole, the article is well-written. It is easy to read and comprehend, and it presents the information clearly and concisely. There are no noticeable grammar or spelling errors in the article, which aids in easy understanding of the content. The article is also well-organized into clearly-labeled sections. The only section that seems redundant is the "Political issues" section because political perspectives were already discussed earlier in the article. The images are all well-captioned, well-positioned, and appear to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

Overall, this article is an informative, well-written, and well-developed reference for information about the vaccine that was developed for the 2009 swine flu pandemic. It has clear explanations of the manufacturing, production, and availability of the vaccine. It also includes political viewpoints surrounding the creation, distribution, and administration of the vaccine. The only part that could be improved is either the removal of the "Political issues" section as a whole or the movement of politics-related information from other sections of the article to the "Political issues" section.