User:Ashcha1234/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: (Health informatics)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because it relates to a grand challenge topic I want to learn more about. Health informatics is really interesting and very applicable in today's world given our current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic. There are a lot of use cases and I am excited to learn more about them.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead has a clear introductory sentence that introduces what health informatics is and used for. It uses the first few sentences to give further clarification, but does not give brief descriptions of the major sections. It does not discuss the history and current state initiatives in the Lead. However, the Lead is concise and not overly detailed. For such a technical topic, the Lead does a good job describing different parts of health informatics.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article has amazing information. All of it very relevant to the topic and gives enough detail of various parts of health informatics. The article is also up to date with the last edit being on Sept 12, 2020. To my knowledge, the article does not have any missing information. Health informatics is just a large topic, so it might be impossible to go into every detail. So, this article does a good job of covering what is important and relevant. This article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps, as this topic is often discussed and researched.


 * 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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

This article is neutral and not biased. It presents all the relevant information about health informatics in an unbiased manner. I don't think there are any views that over or under represented, and it does not persuade the reader in favor of one position.


 * 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?

Sources 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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

As I have said, I really enjoyed reading the article - it is well written and concise. There are no grammatical or spelling errors and it is well organized.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are not too many images - it only has two in the beginning and one towards the end. The article are well captioned. However, the images are not laid out in a visually appealing way. The images are small and in the corners. I would have liked to see them taking up more space to draw more attention.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page actually discusses what information is factual and what is not. People are checking which information is actually valid. It is part of some WikiProjects- Medicine, health and fitness, and computing/ comp sci. From what we have talked about in class, this article goes more global and discusses actual contributions different states and countries are doing.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is overall very good. The strengths are that it gives a lot of detail into some of the technical components of health informatics. I also like how it explored what states are doing for health informatics. It re-emphasizes how this is a global problem that needs resources from everyone. The article can be improved by adding more images and graphs. For such a lengthy article, I would have liked to see more diagrams and pictures that enhance the content discussed. In terms of completeness, it provides a good overview of the important information regarding health informatics.


 * 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?

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:
 * Talk:Health informatics
 * i put my feedback in the last section of the talk page.