User:MarcoVergara/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Being part of the ROTC program and a soon to be Army Medical Services officer, it was important for me to understand the research conducted in the Army. Also, given that there is a pandemic, this institute must have a lot of research being conducted.)

Evaluate the article
Lead section: The introductory sentence does a well job of explaining what the institution is and what the institution does. The lead section provides a broad explanation of the subheadings discussed later in the article. The lead section is concise.

Content: All information provided in the article is relevant to the topic. All information is up to date and there is only one information gap. The history section list the research conducted in decades and the "2020's" is missing.

Tone: Overall the tone is neutral and the word choice is aimed at a general audience. There are no biases and viewpoints that are extremely expressed.

Organization and writing quality: There are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. However, the article is concise and an easy-read.

Sources: The citation source links work and all support the general aim of the article (a general summary of the USAMRIID). The sources are current and are from multiple authors. Peer-review articles would've better supported the article than news articles.

Images and Media: The only image provided was one of the institution's building. The image doesn't seem to have a cited source and the placement of the image is appropriate. The image was captioned correctly. It would've been helpful to have more images, perhaps of the different contributions of the institution.

Talk Page: The article is rated as a "C" article. All of the discussions about the article and institution are negative. One claim is that the SARS-COV2 was developed in a lab at USAMRIID. The way Wikipedia talks about this article is more casual and the evaluations are less formal and structured.

Overall impressions:The article is overall satisfactory, but there is a lot more information that could be provided on history and research being conducted. The article is under-developed and provided the minimum amount of information the public about the institution.