User:Annamirly/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medical–industrial complex

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
When I was originally looking up potential articles to complete this project on, one strategy I had was, in fact, to look up concepts that we have previously talked about in class, but might not be topics that would have a lot of accessible information. This is how I originally found the article on the MIC. Immediately, I noticed that there was not a history section, and that was prime real estate for an addition. Plus, there is a section on other countries, and I figured that may be an interesting way to get out of the United States and expand our research. It's rated as "start class" on the talk page as well as "mid-importance" on the WikiProject Medicine page. The "mid-importance" rating was surprising to me, and despite it, I think we can make very valuable contributions to this page. Finally, there is a warning regarding the neutrality on the page, which also alerted me to the opportunity to improve upon it.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section


 * The lead section to this page is concise and effective, in my opinion. It's not overly long, so somebody could very easily gather an overview/definition of the MIC
 * The second paragraph provides a summary of the contents of the article

Content


 * As I read this page, I am shocked it is still classified as "start class" because there are a lot of sections that help demonstrate the multifaceted nature of the MIC
 * With that being said, as I mentioned earlier, there is not a history section, which I think should be our top priority when improving this article
 * I think that this article can better serve Wikipedia's equity gaps through our additions as we can bring attention to the disparities of black communities and disabled communities
 * I think there are a decent amount of sources that would be classified as "out of date" based on my glances, but it appears that some of them are the the foundational texts on the MIC which is valuable in this context, but could always serve to be updated.

Tone and Balance


 * As I mentioned earlier, there is a warning on the top of the page that claims the neutrality of this article has been disputed
 * There is a section on the Talk page dedicated to the sentences in the article that appear to lack neutrality
 * Generally, speaking the tone and neutrality of the article is muddied by editors describing the danger of the MIC as predatory on patients for profit.
 * I believe that there is not a substantial amount of information from these underrepresented populations that are disproportionally impacted by the MIC.
 * I am foreseeing the need to be careful with the language we use moving forward, as maintaining neutrality while also describing the oppressive nature of the MIC may be difficult.

Sources and References


 * There are a lot of sources here, appearing to be from journals and other highly reputable sources
 * The sources are from academic journals or highly reputable sources such as the WaPo, so I doubt the nature of the articles can be improved on.
 * However, the talk page make claims that editors are not accurately reporting the claims made in their original sources (ie exaggerating or misconstruing what their cited source said)
 * Since there is not a subsection on populations most frequently marginalized by the MIC, I think the backgrounds on authors could serve to be expanded on.
 * The links I clicked were effective

Organization and Writing Quality


 * From what exists in this article, I think it is concise, organized very well, and easy to understand.
 * I like the sections that exist already, I think a major subheading about history and then marginalized populations is necessary to add

Images and media


 * The images included are not super great, however it's hard to show something like the MIC in an image, so there is some graciousness granted there
 * Generally, the images are stock medical images and have a very succinct caption describing what the image is.
 * This is an area that could likely use improvement, but I am not entirely sure what would be best
 * The images could also be captioned better for accessibility purposes
 * The pictures are very small and tucked to the side of the article, so they could likely be reorganized and increased in size

Talk page discussion


 * The talk page on this article is somewhat combative when it comes to disagreements with what has been said
 * There is one user, CatherineGCC, who contributed a lot to this talk page and provided some lovely insight
 * As I mentioned earlier, this article is rated Start class and belongs to the politics (low importance), economics (mid importance), and medicine (mid importance) WikiProjects

Overall impressions


 * The article is well developed for what exists and has very important sections on different levels of the MIC
 * However, what lacks is the connections that people such as Mia Mingus have described in their research
 * This is to say, what exists does not need a complete overhaul, and what we want to do is add another dimension to this article
 * This article is clearly the subject of other people's class projects and whatnot based on what exists, however we see a big hole that needs to be filled when it comes to history and significance