User:AdriGu02/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.


 * James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act
 * I chose to evaluate this article because I wanted to learn more about what was done to advocate for 9/11 first-responders. Throughout my life, I had learned about the attacks. Educational coverage about first-responders ended at their heroic acts. I never knew until recently that many of them continue to suffer health problems from that day. I chose this article because I wanted to find out more about what the federal government did to help them.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The introductory sentence clearly and quickly explains what the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act is
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It neither explains the setup of the article, nor does it go into detail about what will be presented in the next few sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Everything introduced in the Lead is included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The first paragraph of the Lead is concise. It is well written and clearly informs the reader of the topic. The second paragraph is overly detailed. The information presented idoesn't add much to the understanding of what the Act is- it is just adds details about the passing of the Act.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead is concise and informative. In just a few sentences, it explains who James Zadroga was and what the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act is. It would be better if a description of what the different sections would present was also included. The second paragraph of the Lead is unnecessary; it doesn't add any vital information that would help the reader in understanding the topic.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes - last edit was September 13, 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No!
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It deals with the lack of equity in the healthcare system, by advocating for first-responders which are not always represented in policy decisions.

Content evaluation
Everything included in the article is up-to-date and relevant to the topic being discussed. Dealing with healthcare and the extent of its coverage, it is dealing with a topic that can affect marginalized communities. But, in only being targeted towards helping first-responders of the 9/11 attacks, it doesn't specifically address the equity gaps of healthcare in a wide variety of communities - it is more focused on first-responders.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, essentially all facts. Neutral vocabulary used.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Both the anti-act and pro-act viewpoints are represented fairly equally.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Not really

Tone and balance evaluation
Being mostly a description of factual events that took place, the article is fairly neutral in tone and does not attempt to sway the reader to any side in particular in the dispute over the Act.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the latest one cited is from 2020
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Diverse sources but not including marginalized individuals
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The facts are backed by reputable sources, even citing CDC. Diverse references (i.e. wide variety of news stations) also adds to the nuetral tone presented by the article.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
Broken into four clear sections, the article is presented in an easily digestible format. Grammar and spelling are accurate which add to the fluidity of the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Sort of, the first image doesn't give credit to whoever took it. The second image includes a link.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes

Images and media evaluation
The two images included are relevant to the topic and help the reader visualize what is explained in the article. The first image is not cited clearly. The second is.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The more recent updates in the talk page mention reliability and raise concerns about if the evidence and research cited is consistent with the them and reliable.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Start-Class and Low-Importance ; it is part of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health and WikiProject United States
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * It highlights healthcare legislation which we didn't cover in our readings and discussions about 9/11.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page raises concerns about reliability and consistency in sources. This brings up important points and also shows that readers are concerned with having the most accurate information as possible. The article is also a part of two WikiProjects.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article has a good amount of facts which bodes well in terms of reliability.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Adding more evidence and expanding more upon the subject
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * I would say it is underdeveloped-more can be added.

Overall evaluation
This article has good information but more can be done to include the voices of marginalized communities as well as expand more upon the topic being presented.

Optional activity

 * 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 — ~


 * Link to feedback: