User:Skywalker501/Evaluate an Article

The first sentence does define the topic, however, some who are not familiar with scientific language may not understand exactly what H1N1 is without looking further into it. The first paragraph as well as the entire lead section give very good insight into what exactly the H1N1 is and the most important dates of outbreaks. It is very concise and creates a good idea of the article, without diving too deep into it.

The content is very relevant to the topic, though it could use more information about the different outbreaks of the H1N1 outbreaks, especially the less known ones. However, it is great that it does talk a little bit about the outbreaks that are not so widely known. It does not address much about anything else besides the science behind the virus and the events of the virus. It does have a small paragraph about how it affects pregnant women.

The tone is definitely neutral. It seems very science-based, and science is very neutral, given that it is based in fact. The source was easy to read and has plenty of sources and did not have writing or grammatical errors. However, the talk page does have a lot of comments that claims that the source has a good amount of misinformation. Most of these claims have to do with dates, for example, when President Obama called for a state of emergency in 2009. There was not much conversation about the critiques, though.

While looking at the page before I saw the talk page, it looked like a very good article, but it definitely needed to add information about the subtype of the virus, like death rates and areas that it affected the most. It should also include a lot more information about the places that there were outbreaks. The talk page, however, definitely made it seem like the article has a couple areas with false information that needs to be fixed.

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

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.)