User:Subzero10/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating
Coronavirus disease 2019 - Wikipedia

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.)

I choose this article about the Covid 19 virus pandemic because it is affecting a lot people around the world in numerous ways. This article matters because people have to really see how serious this virus is and if we don't start to cure it will affect us as people for along time. My impression of this article were very attracting because I have had the virus and I didn't take it serious and reading more and learning more about the virus made me want to take it much more serious. The article itself had a lot of visuals and helpful feedback so it made me want to pick this article even more.

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.)

Lead Section - This article has a very interesting lead section, it gives me what the virus is made up, it goes in depth about the virus and just gives me wealthy interesting information to read and keep me interested. It includes an introduction sentence, brief description of the virus, and it gives me information that is much needed that can be kept in the article.

Content- Yes this content is relevant, this article you can say is up to date it was published in 2019 and the virus has pop up in 2019 and it is just current 2021. This content isn't missing any information needed and its covering alot about the covid19 virus as a whole. What you should aspect if you get the virus, how you can get the virus, how to get tested for the virus, symptoms of the virus, etc. This article covers populations and gives good facts about them.

Tone and Balance - This article is very neutral it doesn't talk about specific people it just lays down evidence and facts. The claims made are to every age groups so it is important to everyone. There are not really minority view points it just age groups based. The article doesn't really try to persuade just gives you information about its topic.

Sources and References- All the sources are back up with evidence based facts with reliable resources. The sources are current and valid. The author written this information for all people. The sources are really good and evidence based but who is to say that there evidence that the author used its cites could be wrong you may never know but there evidence based with legit cites.

Organization and Writing quality- This article is well written I scanned it for wrong punctuation and spelling error and I found some but not many a lot of minor errors to it. This article is well organized and gives good transitions with opening sentences.

Images and Media - Yes this article includes pictures that enhance your learnings. The images are well captioned. Yes they adhere the copy write regulations. Yes the visual are laid out and are appealing.

Talk Page Discussion - So as I went to the talk page they had a lot to say and they actually found some punctuation errors, wrong spelling, wrong headings and a little more they helped him make is article even more better then what it is now they simply help him clean up his article and add facts pictures and examples and reference and better references. It is part of a Wikipedia Project and more. The people in this article are more compelling and give broad views and key components to this article.

Overall Impressions - This was very good article to me and I learned alot from it .The article strength is his ways of breaking down what he is talking about in his writings to give his article a flow to break down everything he is talking about. The article can improve by getting someone who had the virus and give us some feedback about there experiences. This article is well developed and rich and wealthy, I like this article and it was really good.


 * The problem with taking such a huge article is that it is practically impossible to review; it has over 200k of content, and 453 references, so there is no way that you can have checked all, or even a significant number of them. Sure, it's well-organized and all that, but that is to be expected from an article that has been edited by 1166 editors (there is no "he" as one single editor), and one that gets on average over 20,000 page views every single day. Same with the talk page--I don't see any commentary on spelling, but I do see a post about whether there's something racist about the opening sentence, and I am sure that you will find much more about that (including president Trump's use of "China virus") in the archives: there's 15 archived pages of talk page discussion. So in general, I'd say that this is NOT a very detailed evaluation--there are really no specific comments in here about any of these matters, and again, that's in part because you picked something that is way too big to evaluate in an hour, a day, or even a week... Dr Aaij (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)