User:Ryanzisk26/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hook effect

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I wanted to look at something related to microbiology and the immune system, and the idea of the hook effect stood out when I was browsing articles. Once I looked at the article, I realized that it was relatively short, meaning it was most likely missing some information and would be a good article to evaluate so that I know what I shouldn't do for my own wiki project.

Evaluate the article

 * 1) Lead Section - I thought that the lead section of the article was very informative and contained all of the elements outlined above. There was a clear introductory sentence and it went on to briefly describe the subject of the rest of the articles. If I had one suggestion, it would be to simplify some of the information a little bit more, because the description of what was going to come was a bit convoluted, so the actual descriptions themselves were basically repetitions.
 * 2) Content - I feel that all of the content in the article was relevant, but it was a bit outdated. Although the most recent edit was from 2022, the most recent reference article was from 2012, which is 10 years old. I don't think that the article deals with one of the equity gaps, but given that it is explaining a phenomenon, I don't think it should have to.
 * 3) Tone and Balance - I feel like the tone and balance in this article was perfect. All of the article was neutral, and there were no instances where I thought one view was overrepresented and one was underrepresented. If I was being really nit-picky, then I would say that they kept explaining instances of the Hook Effect, but not acknowledging that the theory could be wrong.
 * 4) Sources and References - There are a multitude of references in the article, although outdated. Regardless, all of them come from credible sources. However, there are some instances where sentences were marked with "citation needed" which needs to be filled in.
 * 5) Organization and Writing Quality - I believe that this article was well-written. Everything is broken up and there were no grammatical errors that I caught.
 * 6) Images and Media - I felt that all of the images in the article were relevant to the subject matter and elevated the article as a whole. All images are cited and well-captioned too, adhering to Wikipedia's copyright policies.
 * 7) Talk Page Discussion - There isn't much in the talk page, but it was proposed on 9/4/2022 to move this article to be under the name of Prozone Effect, which is a more common term for the Hook Effect.
 * 8) Overall Impressions - I thought that the article was relatively strong, they just need to improve on the citations and even add more information about it. I don't know much about the Hook Effect, but there was only a little bit of information in the article, so more can definitely be added.