User:Ahite/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medical diagnosis (Provide a link to the article here.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_diagnosis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose to evaluate this article because I am a nursing major and I find medical diagnosis interesting and will see it within my career. I think it matters because if you have a medical issue, you would want it to figure out what it is and try to resolve it. By just looking at the article, it looks like it contains quality information and covers what it should. The picture look like they go along as well.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead section: When reading the first part, the first two sentences don't entirely fit. I would change the word disease or condition to health issue or problem. Also, I think a few of the sentences could have been combined to reach the introduction. I don't think it is overly detailed and just gives enough information.

Content: Just skimming through the article, most of the headings fit with the topic. The content does seem up-to-date and I think most of the content is relevant. The only parts I may take out is about lag time and over diagnosis. I understand why these were included but I don't think it goes along with the rest. They seem to give off a negative connotation about medical diagnosis. The article does include some history about the first medical diagnosis and how it was used.

Tone and Balance: I believe that the article is neutral, it mainly gives facts and definitions. I do not think the article is trying to persuade the reader or say anything bad about it.

Sources and Resources: They did use a good amount of journals which will provide good facts but I did see they used the Washington Post which could give false information and try to sway the reader. The article they took from there was about errors leading to the cause of successful malpractice claims. Some of the sources are current. For example, 2021. And some are not current. For example, 2002. I think they could have used some better sources. I like the journals, encyclopedias, and the source form Health and Human Services, but I think they could've replaced the news coverage ones.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article includes a diagram that guides the reader through the medical assessment process. I like that a lot because it will help the reader understand more of how a medical diagnosis works. The other picture that was included was of a machine taking an x-ray which is a test that can be run to complete a medical diagnosis. I did not notice any spelling errors. I would change some or the words so it doesn't sound harsh, like disease sounds too intense.

Talk Page Discussion: The conversations in the talk page were helpful to the article. I agreed with most of what other editors suggested and included them above. This article is C rated and listed as high class. It is listed in the Wikiproject of medicine.

Overall Impression: Overall this article wasn't terrible. I could tell it wasn't as good or developed as other articles but I chose to read one that was not fantastic so I can make these evaluations. I think the article can be improved with different vocabulary and more reliable links. I would call this article underdeveloped. I believe it has good potential but it is just not all there yet.