User:Parveen3/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Allergic rhinitis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in this topic, and wanted to practice my article evaluation skills. As well, I felt that this article had many positive attributes that will teach me how to properly evaluate it.

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:

The lead section has a clear and concise first sentence that describes the article's content. The lead section does mention many or most of the article topics. It does not have excessive information about topics that are not covered in the article. The lead section is very detailed, but not overly so.

Content:

The content presented in this article is relevant and appropriate. I do believe that most of the references are from 10 years ago or later, but there are a few references from 2000-2010, so it may be beneficial to update some of the information if possible. I believe that most of the topics that need to be there are present, though the content and information could be expanded for many of the sections, perhaps adding guidelines, side effects for treatments, or more in depth details generally.

Tone and Balance:

The article does seem balanced and comes from a neutral point of view. There are no claims, biases, or major over-representation of any one viewpoint. Information that does not have scientific backing is listing as such. The article does not try to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References:

Many references come from national institutes, reputable journals, and published textbooks. There are a variety of sources and they do seem thorough. Perhaps more recent references may be necessary to see updated changes, but many references are from the last 10 years. Many of the links work, but some of them are referencing online pages that have been changed or archived, so it would be beneficial to update these references. As well, some references list using the "Wayback Machine" which shows archived articles also, so these could be updated.

Organization and writing quality:

The writing is clear and easy to understand. Many complex words are defined and explained. The article does not have any major glaring issues with spelling or grammar that impede on clarity. The article is also well organized and easy to follow.

Images and media:

There are not too many images within this article, but the few that are there seem to be appropriate and help with understanding the topic. The images are well captioned and seem to follow the copyright rules.

Talk page:

This article was used in a Wiki education course assignment and this was listed appropriately within the talk page. There are not many conversations happening now with the article, but previous conversations were appropriate and further enhanced the article.

Overall impressions:

This article is considered a C-class level-5 vital article. I think that clarity and conciseness are strengths of this article. But, I do think that this article does require some updates and expansion of the sections. I do believe this article is well-written, but is not fully complete as more information will enhance it.