User:Malaypayne/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cardiovirus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I don't know much about Cardiovirus, so it seemed interesting to learn about and evaluate. Cardioviruses can have serious effects on those infected with them, and so it is important to learn about them for safety, prevention, and possible treatment options. My initial impression of it was that there was a lot of good information, but the article is farm from being complete.

Evaluate the article
The introductory lead sentence does a good job at introducing the viruses taxonomically, but not much about the effects or significance they have. The lead has a "taxonomy" section that does well at introducing the span of what they want to cover, but it is not complete yet as some links don't work/don't have information associated with them and citations are still needed. Overall the lead seems concise and informative, but there are a lot of different types of this virus which at first can be overwhelming with their big names/words used to describe them.

Content wise, the article is good for what it has, but it is still lacking a lot of information about the topics brought up in the lead. It has been updated as recently as last month. They go into detail about how the virus replicates and propagates, as well as the history of it clinically. Nothing seems to be out of place in this article, it just seems underdeveloped and in need of more specific entries concerning the differing types of Cardiovirus that have been isolated and which were mentioned in the introduction.

I'd say this article is very neutral, factual, and historical. There isn't persuasion or bias in any certain way. The article does a good job of stating the facts, and when the exact mechanisms or behaviors of a virus aren't well known they indicate that uncertainty in their description.

References and sources cited are pretty good for the material that is present. There is one part in the taxonomy section which is labeled as needing citation and another later on, but other than that each paragraph and section has at least one or more citation associated with them. The links are working and they seem to mainly come from scholarly journals which is positive.

I think this article is organized well, again it just needs some more fleshing out to fully come together. The wording is sometimes seems foreign with how large and unique the names of the certain viruses and their abbreviations are, but that isn't anything too abnormal for articles such as this and as one becomes more familiar with the material it becomes less confusing and daunting. The grammar seems good to me and it is well written overall.

There is one image of the Cardiovirus A specifically, and it does enhance the article by giving you a visual concept of what is being discussed. In the upper-left hand corner, however, there is a big bold "B" and to me that is confusing because the caption says it is of Cardiovirus A, but there is also a Cardiovirus B. I think it is probably just a leftover artifact of wherever they got the picture from, but it does clash with the description of the picture.

Looking at the "Talk page" I do not see any conversations going on. This article is rated C-class and is part of the Viruses and Microbiology WikiProjects.

This article does a good job at presenting the breadth of Cardioviruses taxonomy, life cycle, and clinical history. It could be improved by having more content added to address all that was brought up in the introduction as well as explain things more in depth such as the effects it can have, signs and symptoms, and possible treatments, etc. Overall I believe this is an underdeveloped article which has good potential for improvement and significance.