User:Ryanparnell/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Respiratory syncytial virus

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article about respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as this virus is responsible for a sharp spike in pediatric hospital admissions over the past few months. While this virus regularly has an annual surge, the large number of cases this winter has penetrated the mainstream press, becoming a focal point of public health discussions, especially in the field of pediatrics. Whether reading the name RSV in the New York Times or diagnosed by an emergency room physician, I imagine the Wikipedia page view count saw a similar spike as the virus itself, as many parents sought more information on the virus infecting their child. This Wikipedia has practical public health implications, especially in context of this year's surge, so its refinement is essential to the public's understanding of this public health crisis.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: This lead section provides a succinct summary of RSV, specifically a very broad picture of the type of virus, its common manifestations and a general approach to medical management. While this lead section provides an outline to this page, I believe this lead section is a bit too broad, using nondescript phrases like "it is a notable pathogen in all age groups" and "RSV can cause outbreaks in community and hospital settings". While categorically true, these phrases provide no specific insight into the characteristics of RSV and remain a bit too broad. Overall, this lead section provides an accurate summary; however, by adding more specific characteristics of RSV, this page could be a better way for patients to differentiate RSV from other viruses.

Content: Overall, content seems to be very exhaustive and comprehensive. Many details about virology, especially specific proteins within the virus, that would be a very useful summary for scientists. Really detailed section about diagnosis - comprehensive, but may be a bit too detailed considering many of these tests are generic for all viruses. Clinical manifestations are present, but could be more streamlined for ease of consumption by patients.

Tone and Balance: Article seems to be neutral, no specific claims seem to be biased in any direction. Due to the controversy surrounding antivirals, I think the article does a great job of balancing the perspectives on RSV treatment.

Sources and References: Solid references, functioning links.

Organization and Writing Quality: Personally, I believe the writing quality on this article could be improved - many sentences are repetitive and unclear, adding unnecessary bulkiness to the article and burying the most important articles. Organization of the article thrives with the tables (see symptoms, protein) - this sort of clear organization could be utilized even more throughout the article.

Images and Media: Some images are vague and unnecessary (multiple cartoon renderings of the virus do not really inform the reader). Could create tables to better organize the information.

Talk Page: Not much conversation on the Talk page despite the recent spike in infections.

Overall Impressions: Useful article that seems to be more tailored towards scientists and clinicians rather than patients. Streamlining patient information with reference to research in the field, clinical management and recent surges in infection could make the article more useful to the general public.