User:Tracegaskill/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Bubonic plague

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I've always liked history, and as far as disease goes this one has had huge world impacts. From the weakening and potential cause of collapse of empires to major alterations in commerce and war the bubonic plague has had enormous effects.

This article felt like it had been edited and re-edited numerous times and in my opinion that didn't do it any favors. Some of the information felt incredibly shallow while others seemed far to in depth for the section it was in.

Evaluate the article
The Lead section was not very concise. It touched most of the sections that would be introduced in the article, however including the specific numbers for morbidity and mortality seemed to be a detail that could be addressed better in the sections they belonged to.

The contents appeared to be up to date including information from studies published within the last year.

The tone and balance appeared to be neutral and balanced.

There appear to be a wide variety of sources from many different authors.

The article is well organized and free of grammatical or spelling errors. The flow of some of the sentences feels off in some places. Some words are used correctly but in such a way as to derail the flow of those sentences. In the lead section we go from easily accessible language to data on morbidity and mortality very quickly.

Images and media enhanced the quality of the article.

Conversations in the talk section made it clear that many people with many backgrounds have worked on this article. Some seemed to believe that bubonic plague, clearly stated to be caused by Yersinia pestis, was a virus. This was mostly the tone that I perceived. Some people that knew what they were talking about and others who hadn't done much if any reading into the topic and were trying to push hearsay.

The status is good and accurate. The information is correct and there are many sources and authors for this article providing many viewpoints and areas of expertise. Some of the language could be improved. It seems like some words were changed here and there so that someone could say that they had made an edit. Overall the article was well developed and conveyed correct information.