User:Lillybiology/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Janssen COVID-19 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 chose this article because I took this vaccine and I wanted to know more about it. I thought it was interesting to read about a vaccine that directly applied to me recently. I think that the J&J, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines are interesting to learn about and kind of controversial right now.

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 

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the sentence clearly states the name, what it is, who it was developed by and where.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead has a content's section that provides information about the article's major sections.

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and not overly detailed.

 Content 

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes the article's content is relevant to the topic. The content is about the medical uses, the pharmacology, chemistry, manufacturing, adverse effects, history, society and culture.

Is the content up-to-date? This content is up to date and has many citations.

'''Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?''' No this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps - this topic is kind of unfilled (I think there could be more). It is trying to stay away from the social aspects of the vaccine, but there is a society and culture section. In this section, maybe this would deal with the equity gaps because it writes there was distribution to homeless, incarcerated, and refugee populations.

 Tone and Balance 

Is the article neutral? Yes the article is neutral.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no claims that are heavily biased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I do not think the viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. I think that it has a neutral viewpoint, but there is a section about debunked myths.

Are the minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? The Society and culture section addresses this.

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

 Sources and References  Are all the facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.

Are all the sources thorough? Yes.

Are the sources current? Yes.

'''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?''' Yes. No.

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I think there are lots of very good sources for this article.

 Organization and writing quality 

Is the article well-written? Yes but there could be more, I think the Pharmacology and Chemistry sections could be filled more.

Does the article have any grammatical errors? I do not see any.

Is the article well-organized? Yes.

 Images and Media 

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes.

Are images well-captioned? Yes.

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so.

Are the images laid out in the visually appealing way? Yes.

 Tal page discussion  What kinds of conversations are happening? Rename of the wikipedia article name, content additions, image adding, inaccuracies and additions to country map, information checking, table addition.

'''How is the article rated? Is it part of any WikiProjects?''' C-class part of WikiProject COVID-19, Medicine, and Pharmacology.

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It lacks information about the science and is more focused on the fact it was created by J&J Pharmaceuticals.

 Overall Impressions 

What is the article's overall status? I think the article is good, but needs many improvements for the content and organization.

What are the article's strengths? Well-cited information, lots of diverse citations, neutral writing.

How can the article be improved? Amount of content (more), content heading organization.

How would you assess the article's completeness? I would say it's 3/10 in terms of completeness.