User:Am.nalula/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: Immigrant Health Care in the United States
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I've chosen to evaluate this article because I had the opportunity to explore and analyze the barriers to health care faced by immigrant groups in particular and the state provisioning that has been implemented in order to address these rising issues. Immigrant community groups may be the most affected by structural and social inequities when it comes to healthcare between all people of color communities and ethnic groups.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead for this article was able to concisely explain the overall topic for the article while providing some definitions and background for the topic of interest. The introductory sentence defined the topic name, however it could have more effectively introduced the types of issues and barriers faced by immigrants to bring context into the issue. The lead could have gone more in depth in describing each of the major sections that the article talks about. It merely explained the surface level understanding into the immigrant health care, however, the article did stay within the scope of the rest of the sections and did not digress into extraneous tangents.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Overall, the content is mostly relevant to the topic. Some of the statistics seem a little outdated in terms of the number of immigrants in the United States etc. Most of the data was from 2010 or earlier with the exception of one piece of information that was from 2019. I wouldn’t necessarily say that some pieces of information was missing, rather some information could be expanded upon.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
In terms of the tone and neutrality of the article, I would argue that it is difficult to present the information in a way that is completely neutral and devoid of presenting any sort of bias or persuasion toward the claim of arguing for better access to health care for immigrants. Therefore, the article contains slight bias towards such claim but does try to remain balanced throughout. In order to create a greater sense of balance, the author could have explained more of the opposition toward having the barriers to health care beyond the section that the end for the opposing public opinions for the topic.

Source and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
For the most post, the author utilizes an adequate amount of sources throughout the article, however at times, i did find myself reading through a large section of information questioning where the sources for the information was from. The author did use many references that covered a wide range of sources that they could have pulled from. From those that I checked, all of the links seemed to work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article overall is clear, concise, and well organized. The article structure could have been arranged more clearly however. Different sections on barriers to health care seemed scattered throughout the article under “Overview”, “Demographics”, and “Barriers to Care”. By connecting this information in a different way could increase the overall flow of the article better. In terms of grammar and spelling, there were only minor mistakes that I found but nothing that took away from the article as a whole.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There were no visual aids or photos at all in this article. It would have been helpful to include data charts on statistics or possibly pictures of community health centers.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
In the talk page, most of the comments discuss ways in which the topic can be expanded to encompass different subgroups of people and how they experiences may differ or be worsened because of certain facets or beliefs of their identity. The article of rated Class-C with low importance in most of the WikiProjects it is involved with except for "Human Rights" in which it is rated with high importance. I find it interesting that when in comes to this topic in class, our discussion represents an in-depth analysis into reasons why and the structural reasons for the lack of access to health care whereas on the Wiki space, it tries to encompass many perspectives without going as in detail about the subject.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think that the article does a great job at providing an overview of the essential topics to discuss in regards to immigrant health and health care access in the United States. It provides concise, relevant history and background while informing the readers about the arguments that that support and oppose increasing immigrant health care access. This article is almost well developed as I feel like it can be expanded upon to increase the balance of the overall article and to show awareness of the different nuances and discourses behind this subject throughout history.

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: