User:SpringBio2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
SV40

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate this article?
I have chosen to evaluate this article because it has a C- class rating, meaning it has some missing information and may require some significant cleanup. This makes the article ideal to evaluate and make suggestions. Furthermore, SV40 affects both monkeys and humans. The hypothesis that says SV40 might cause cancer has some controversy in its research. This made me want to learn more about the topic, as well as evaluate the article to help make it an easier and more accurate read.

Evaluate the article
An article on SV40, a polyomavirus that affects both monkeys and humans. I feel that it is lacking in some sections. Here are my thoughts and suggestions.


 * Lead section: This article had a good lead section and gave a clear and concise definition of what SV40 is and why it is important.
 * Content: There was a good amount of content that seemed relevant in this article, however, some topics were getting more emphasis than others. I would add more information about the history and well as other animals. Considering monkeys were mentioned in the leading section, I feel as though they should be mentioned in more depth than they were. I think to make the article flow more I would move history to the top, followed by the human disease section and animal section. This allows for more of a background before diving into the cellular/molecular level of how the virus works.
 * Images and Media: To enhance this article some figures could be used to help readers have a better understanding. For example, I would add a figure pertaining to the process of reactivation.
 * Sources and References: I was impressed to see that the top reference was from PubMed. This is an excellent scholarly source to look into medical related research papers, that have significant data to back their findings.
 * Overall impressions: This article is C-class, so it could use some improvements in writing style as well as the information presented. It is a little underdeveloped and many edits were made due to unproven or misleading information brought up in the talk section.