User:TheOneCheese/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Virology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article, because I'm majoring in medical microbiology and I plan on getting a job in the field of virology. I believe that a good understanding of virology is crucial to understanding how to prevent future disease outbreaks and developing vaccines. Evaluating this article will also be good practice for evaluating future articles that focus on the medical or biological field.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The lead is concise and covers all of the broad points of virology. It explains what virology is, a bit of its history, how it's studied, who studies it, etc. I'd say the lead section is just about perfect.

Content: The content is well covered without leaning too much into one topic of virology over the other. The article covers the history of virology, different research methods and how they've developed over time, what virology does for society, etc. and without any unecessary information. The content of the article is up to date and was recently re-written in 2022 to be more concise.

Tone and Balance: The article is written from a completely neutral point of view and doesn't try to persuade the reader in any direction. The article simply states the facts, gives a brief explanation (when specific research methods or tools are being discussed), and then moves on to the next topic.

Sources and References: Most of the sources and references are up to date although some are quite out dated (published in 2005 or 2007). However, the information from the outdated sources simply hasn't been advanced past what they have already established, so there isn't much need to update them. The sources have been written by all sorts of authors from different periods history in regards to virology with different qualifications and backgrounds. Overall, the sources are credible and diverse.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is broken down into different sections of virology, such as history, research methods, the goal of virology, etc. and is easy to follow. There are no typos that I could find, however, some of the sentences seem a little out of order. Specifically, the last sentence of the leading section should be moved to the top or re-written, because it's not a good conclusion sentence for the leading section.

Images and Media: There are a good amount of images without it feeling too crowded. There is typically an image accompaning every new section (an image depicting the "founder" of virology, an image depicting an electron microscope, etc.) It's all laid out very neat and each image has a citation.

Talk page discussion: The talk page is a bit strnage as most of the conversation about virology is actually in the Virus Talk Page. However, they discussed how they might combine the virology and the virus wikipedia articles since a lot of the information was restated and they came to the conclusion that they should keep both, but re-write them to be more congruent and to build off of each other. It is a B-rated article in wikipedia and is apart of the viruses wikiproject.

Overall Impressions: Overall the article is pretty good, but the writing could be cleaned up a little bit and reorganized. The sources and media are excellent and shouldn't be changed. Id'd say a B rating from wikipedia is pretty accurate and the article is still being developed, so I'm confident that the article will be perfect with just a little more work.