User:Pannellia/Evaluate an Article

What article have you chosen to evaluate?
Bubonic plague

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the bubonic plague article because it was the most familiar to me. I wanted to pick an article on something I was familiar with because I thought that might make this exercise less daunting for me. This subject matters because it was one of the worst pandemics in human history. It was traumatic, gruesome, and it's left a lasting impact on the world today. My preliminary impression of the article is positive. I like how it's subsections are organized and I'm happy there is something included about how the bubonic plague has left an impact on our culture.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section- The lead includes an introductory sentence that clearly states the article's topic. The lead also includes a brief description of each of the article's major sections. I did not see any information in the lead that is not present in the article. Overall, I think the lead section is clear and not too overly detailed.

Content- The articles content is relevant to the topic, and I noticed it has information about plague cases from 2020, so I believe that it is being kept up to date. I question how much of the content needs to be there for "society and culture," but I don't want to dismiss how influential the black death was to our society. I don't think this article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance- I find this article to be neutral, not particularly swaying the reader to one position or another. There aren't many viewpoints on the subject that I can find that seem over or under represented. There are no fringe points represented in the article, either. The tone of the article is mostly scientific and a bit historical, with little points on how our society and culture reacted and changed with the plague.

Sources and References- Not all facts in the article are backed up with a proper reference, especially further down in the article where the Society and Culture section begins. There are a handful of (citation needed) spots where I think a citation is necessary. There are better sources available for some of the information cited in the article. For example, the Independent and CNN were cited as news coverage of recent cases of bubonic plague in China. There are other sources with greater authority that can be used to convey this information. I believe that the sources used do reflect a wide variety of literature available on the bubonic plague. I found no issues after I checked a few links in the article.

Organization and Writing Quality- I like the way the article is organized, but I think some of the writing in the article can be improved. For example, the Epidemiology section contains some awkward sentences that may need revision. But overall, I think the article is clear and easy to read.

Images and Media- I believe that the plague doctor image and the culture image are not necessary to the reader's being able to understand the topic. I think the rest of the images are well placed and are visually appealing. I think the images are well captioned, but some of them leave me questioning where the information came from (for example, distribution of plague-infected animals image).

Talk Page Discussion- This article is included in four wiki projects, including wiki project microbiology, wiki project medicine/translation, wiki project rodents, and wiki project death. The article is rated as C-Class. There has been a lot of talk behind the scenes of the article with many suggestions for edits over the years.

Overall Impressions- I think the article needs some support. I think its biggest strengths come in the beginning of the article in the cause/signs and symptoms/treatment/diagnoses sections. I think it needs more support in the epidemiology sections and the society and culture sections- particularly with phrasing and it's references. I think the article is underdeveloped but not in terrible condition.