User:AsiahHimawan/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: American Health Care Act of 2017
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: This was the bill that has caused many Americans to lose their insurance -- a very important change and relevant to the class.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. It mentions the full name of the AHCA along with other versions followed by a quick definition of what the Act would do.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. It describes the history of the AHCA, mentioning when the GOP achieved unified control of Congress and the presidency, followed by previous attempts, as well as projected impact, reaction, and public opinion.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Everything mentioned can be found in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? This history of the AHCA might be a little overly detailed with two large sections on the history. I think some parts can be moved to the background section.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes. They are all related to the AHCA, the situation prior, the process, what it says, as well as reaction/public opinion.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. It even included a section about 2018 elections after the AHCA received heavy support from the GOP.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is a section on the Accuracy of CBO Coverage forecasts regarding the coverage impact of the ACA/Obamacare. To me, it is a little unclear why it is added in this section where it is supposed to be the potential impact of the AHCA if it were passed.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The feeling I received is that the article is heavily against the AHCA, but at the same time, it was a very unpopular act and so the article does well at pointing out why it was so unpopular. All the impacts were evaluated by the CBO.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. The sentences are simply saying it how it is, but the sheer quantity of being against it makes it feel biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The article needs section on the side that did support the AHCA.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. The sentences are simply saying it how it is, but the sheer quantity of being against it makes it feel biased.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The lead does not have any citation until the last paragraph. Whether or not these sentences are repeated in the following sections with the source, it would be nice to have them in the lead as well. The Comparison between versions section does not have a lot of citation tied to each information provided.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Sources are from the CBO, the Commonwealth Fund, as well as news sources that speak about reactions to the AHCA.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. Majority are from 2017 which was when the AHCA was passed in the House.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. I have checked a good amount.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. The sentences are not too long and there are well-placed bullet points when things need to be listed.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The article flows very well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. It includes graphs that help with understanding the potential impact of the AHCA, if passes.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes. Concise descriptions of the graphs.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are a few graphs without any citation.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. They are lined up perfect on the right hand-side.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There was a discussion on whether or not to remove this page since the AHCA was going to fail (this was prior to the Senate vote). However, now that it did official fail, I do not see any mentions of whether to keep or rename.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It is a C-Class article. Yes.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? It seems pretty much what I expected. Has a section for potential changes, there's even a section on the use of a Category called Trump administration controversies.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What are the article's strengths? Provides thorough detail of the potential impact of the AHCA as well as the different versions.
 * How can the article be improved? Needs to include the side that support the AHCA (though I understand it is considered a controversial topic) as well as better citation.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it is well-developed, but it can be improved. Perhaps a section on the failure to pass in the Senate followed by response. The section about the AHCA's impact in the 2018 election was good.

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: