User:Slrosen/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: Gold Coast Influenza Epidemic
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This is a short article that needs more information. We already noticed some typos and misspellings that need to be fixed. Because one of the SDG 6 goals is sanitation, we could add information about water and sanitation in the Gold Coast region and how they relate to the flu/spread of disease.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Maybe too concise; needs more information.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Not really, too much information about the flu in general, and not about how it specifically relates to the Gold Coast.
Is the content up-to-date? Not really. It's about a historical incident, but there is no information about what happened after the epidemic.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, section on "nature of the flu" seems irrelevant. There is no information about what factors led to the epidemic or what happened afterward. It doesn't say how the epidemic started. No information about how the government addressed the epidemic or how the Gold Coast region was affected by it.

Is the article neutral? Yes
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No personal viewpoints are expressed, so we don't know how different people were affected by the epidemic.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, one source is a blog
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Too few sources & too little information used from the current sources listed
Are the sources current? Yes
Check a few links. Do they work? 4th ref. link does not work. Several citations do not have links.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Somewhat
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes, there are several typos and other errors
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No, not enough sections

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No, there are no images
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? No talk at all
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Part of the WikiProjects on Ghana, viruses, disaster management, & medicine. In all WikiProjects it is rated start-class.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Haven't discussed this specific issue in class

What is the article's overall status? Start-class, underdeveloped
What are the article's strengths? A lot of data to back up the information currently available
How can the article be improved? Fixing errors and adding more information overall.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Poorly developed, does not seem complete at all.

Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~~~~