User:Shiftteamnico/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Uğur Şahin

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it deals with a prominent, contemporary person whose page should have a lot of recent activity.

Lead section
The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead provides a brief description of the article's major sections.

Content
The article's content is relevant and accurate (as far as my knowledge is aware).

However, it may not be as current as it could be and it is certainly lacking in volume.

It may be worth adding detail (or even denoting a discrete section) for his COVID research, as this is what he is most widely-recognized for.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral and void of any significant bias. It fairly considers viewpoints (where they apply).

There appears to be no agenda to the article; it is written objectively.

Sources and References
There are abundant, quality sources in the article. Linked pages and citations occur where they are needed.

The cited works are all accessible and seem to be written by a diverse range of authors.

However, there are several wikipedia sub-links provided which do not have an actual page linked.

Organization and writing quality
The article is well-written; I did not detect any grammatical or dictional errors.

The article has intuitive organization. Although, some sections are sparing in content (ex. "Memberships" & "Publications"); it may be worthwhile to integrate these into other sections or add content so they are deserving of their own heading. Also, new sections need to be added: his most significant scientific contribution (i.e. COVID vaccine) should not be hidden under the subheading "BioNTech" - it deserves its own section.

Images and Media
The article has two images with concise, effective captions.

However, more images - and more relevant images - should be added regarding Sahin's COVID research and contributions.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page has a lengthy debate on whether it's appropriate (or necessary) to include nationality in the lead; the lead has been changed numerous times to include or exclude nationality.

The article is has a stub-class quality rating; suggests that there needs to be considerably more content added. The article is an ongoing Wikiproject. It is worth noting that there is a talk page section set out for talks of page expansion.

Overall impressions
The stub classification is accurate: this article is undoubtedly a work in progress.

The article is well-written, well-organized and impartial. However, its information is sparse and it is generally underdeveloped. There is a significant lack of detail in some sections that deserve great detail.

The underdeveloped nature of this article is understandable, as new revelations and information arise on the topic in the present day. Nonetheless, it is clear that it requires substantiation.