User talk:Mcguigan.m/sandbox

Article Evaluation: 1/16/19

Article Evaluation
Wikipedia article: "Vaccine controversies"

-introduction take a tone that immediately errs more on the side of pro-vaccination

-article spends a lot of time talking about the history of vaccination, which seems unnecessary

-no elaboration or update on the 1904 Brazil Vaccine Revolt

-minimal information given about the modern day vaccine argument in the context of western medicine, or explanation of the argument behind vaccines causing autism

-this article spends a lot of time discussing the history of vaccination controversies, rather than the current controversies themselves

-entire section devoted to the effectiveness of vaccines, which seems irrelevant and makes the article appear biased

-little detail about the suspected role of big pharma in vaccination campaigns

-no information about pop culture and celebrity perspectives and their influence on the general public

-while it's clear that the author themself does not voice an opinion, this article does take on a distinctly pro-vaccination tone, and rarely appeals to the mindset of those who oppose vaccination

-this article has plenty of legitimate sources, and all of the links that I've check so far have been functional and/or led to proper citations

-majority of the information utilized is from scholarly articles, with direct references to academic studies or published research papers

-a lot of the discussion on the talk page is related to details about article wording and proper citations, as well as accusations about "false editing" instead of about the discussion itself

-before the talk page itself begins, a "do not feed the trolls" warning appears, discouraging "endless debates that don't lead anywhere"

-no rating present for this article

-part of the following WikiProjects:"Skepticism," "Medicine," "Chiropractic," "Autism" (all of these are rated B-class)

Sorry if this isn't the right place to put this I enjoyed reading what you had so far. The topic is quite interesting. I went on the Vaccine hesitancy wiki page and noticed that they already have a section for measles in the United States. You have a little background on measles in your article so I suggest adding the part to the beginning of the section. Unless you are trying to create a completely different section that is just about Washington State. I think that just incorporating your edits into the current section would be best since your edits aren't different than what the section is already trying to do. This is a small thing but I would just cite the sources by using the cite button and not just including the link. It is actually easier than writing down the number and then putting the link down.

The PBE seems out of place from the Washington outbreak. I understand how it adds to your article but it is not specific to that certain instance. Unless you plan on adding that in another section of the original article. Overall great job! Keep up the work.

-Kevin