User:QueenStarrUniverse/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bubonic plague

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I like learning about the plague. It's fascinating to me, because of its infection pathway and mark on history, among other things. Bubonic plague is an incredibly deadly disease, and while it is not common anymore, it was responsible for millions of deaths in Europe's past. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is shorter than I thought it would be, what with all the history behind it, but that it covered all the main points.

Evaluate the article
I felt that the beginning of this article was a little too focused on the symptoms of the disease, rather than the disease itself. However, as the overview goes on, the different presentations of the disease are listed, as well as its primary route of transmission, and then moves on to death rates. Prevention methods are briefly outlined, and then the tragic history of the plague is introduced. The lead is concise, touching on each point that will later go into detail, though there are some improvements that could be made in the organization (prevention before mortality rates might be rewritten) and word choice ("inoculated" for vaccine administration might be changed to "vaccinated").

The content is not up to date with recent disease numbers, dating back to 2010 and 2015. While these numbers are important, some more recent data from the 2020s would bring the epidemiology section up to date. The information is all relevant, and there isn't much missing besides some more information about its effect on the immune system and how its disease pathway works in the "cause" section. And, I think it would really benefit from the addition of the "Delta 32" mutation that eliminates the DNA that codes for a co-receptor on WBCs, leading to resistance or immunity from the plague. This is how survivors existed in plague-ridden Europe, which is a fascinating discovery that would really add to the depth of this article.

The article does not have any biases, nor does it attempt to persuade the reader in any way. It is purely factual.

Some links were checked, and they all led to a reputable source. Everything that should be cited (bar a couple of sentences that may very well tie into the next written citation, rather than being stand-alone information) is followed by a link to the citation page. I would recommend some diversity in the information about prevention and symptoms, as most of the citations are to the same WHO page.

The article could do with another revision, as some of the information is disorganized or poorly-written. It is still concise with all relevant information, but some sentences could definitely be reworded into something easier to read. Some more line breaks may also be beneficial to break up the blocks of text.

All images cited. They also are well captioned and add to the article.