User:73.93.153.81/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 The Human Doctor 

Choose an article on Wikipedia related to your course to read and evaluate. As you read, consider the following questions (but don't feel limited to these):

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

After reading that title of the article, I had first assumed that the article was going to be about how doctors should be more empathetic and essentially be more human rather than seeing patients has symptoms and money. But as you read it on, it talks about a psychiatrist giving his patients' medications to relieve their emotions for the time being; however, he recognizes that he isn't doing much to address their social needs.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Optional: 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