User:Alisha2003/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article 1: Health Care in California

Article 2: Free Clinic

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
Article 1: I chose this article because it highlights the main healthcare programs of California. It also provides some information about the main cities of California as a point of comparison. My initial thoughts on the article was that its concise and gives a decent overview of healthcare policies and programs in California which directly effect my sector.

Article 2: I chose this article because it gives descriptive insight into what the role of free clinics actually is and what demographic of patients they serve. I think this information is necessary when evaluating free clinics. It also provides information about free clinics by state, so I liked how it was providing specific information and acknowledging that the functions of a free clinic depends on its location.

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.)

Article 1:

The article is written from a very neutral standpoint and only serves the purpose of providing factual information. However, I do think it leaves out quite a bit of information regarding rural healthcare in California. It uses Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco as its main examples of what healthcare programs look like. In doing so it only provides an urban perspective. Also, I do believe the information is a bit out of date as it is citing information from 2018. I do think everything written in the article is relevant the California health care systems as it talks about public programs and private insurance markets that exist within the state. All of the links in the article work, and link to other Wiki pages or to other sources. Most of the sources cited are reliable scholarly sources with a diverse array of authors. There are a few news articles in the citations which are not considered a reliable source and could be replaced with something more scholarly and peer reviewed. The article is part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject California, but is rated of low and mid-importance respectively.

Article 2:

This article is mostly written from a neutral standpoint, but in this "History" section some editors may have taken an opinionated stance on the success and challenges of certain health care programs. I think the article actually does a decent job in represented different marginalized groups as it has an entire section on the demographics of free clinic patients. Everything written in the article is relevant to the topic of free clinics and does a good job in going in depth on some key subtopics, such as medical malpractice liability and prescription assistance programs. Most of the sources cited in the citations are reliable scholarly sources with a diverse range of authors and areas explored. There are a few unreliable sources that should be replaced as they are not peer reviewed. Examining the "Talks" page of the website, I can see that people are actively editing and adding the website which means it must attract a lot of users. The article is part of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject United States and gets a C-class rating for both. So, much more can be added to the article to make it more detailed and useful for research.