User:Avrillarios/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Article #1: Health in Nicaragua

Article #2: Medical volunteerism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

Article #1: I chose this specific Wikipedia article as my practice experience involves healthcare in Nicaragua which is directly correlated with overall health in the country. This matter is important because it allows one to see the gaps in the healthcare systems and how this directly impacts the well-being of the local community. My initial impression was that the article touches on a decent array of topics, but the information provided is relatively brief.

Article #2: This Wikipedia article also aligns with my practice experience as I will have the role of the medical volunteer in Nicaragua. The topic itself is extremely important as it is highly debated for handful of reasons, mainly ethical; it is important that we remain educated on these debates and apply the information appropriately when doing medical volunteer work. My initial reaction was that the article is very dental health volunteering based in terms of providing specific information. All of the articles content is relevant to the topic, but I think that the section on 'Violence against women' could be further elaborated on to deeper the connection between health.

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 Health in Nicaragua does have a lead section, but it doesn't fully introduce the topic of health in Nicaragua. It immediately starts discussing public health threats. There are also some topics that are very briefly mentioned, but are not discussed again in the main sections of the article. The second paragraph, however, may make more sense by being the first paragraph as it explicitly discusses the health status of the country. The article has a mix of outdated and newer sources, but through my research, I have discovered a lack of updated sources on Nicaragua health. This may prevent the content from being entirely up to date, but a majority of the statistical information is relatively updated. I would be interested in seeing if I can find any updated sources to add to this article. In regards to missing information, I think there are numerous health topics that could be included, but one thing that comes to mind is history of health in Nicaragua and COVID-19.

The tone is very neutral, but some topics but have longer sections than others, but again this may be due to the limiting source material. For example, the Infant Health section is pretty short and I'm sure can be slightly expanded. The Communicable diseases section is relatively well balanced in relation to how prevalent this is within health in Nicaragua. The page is very well cited with a lengthy references list; all facts seem to have reputable sources with working links written by many different authors, including some that I have used in my work. The article is well organized, with the exception of what I mentioned in the beginning, and includes clear headings and sub-heading of the topics being discussed. Overall, it is easy to read and well-written with no noticable grammatical errors upon first pass. There are no images included in the article which could potentially be a weakness as it may prevent readers from being attracted to the page.

The talk page is pretty empty. There have been a few edits made, but I do not see any conversations going on which makes sense as the article is rated Start-class. This tells me that it is a new article and while it is in decent shape, there are many improvements that can be made. I think the most useful improvement would be to expand on the information that is already there and as well as add a few more sections. With the input of many writers, the article could be developed into a higher standing, more reputable piece.

Article #2: The article Medical volunteerism is lacking an introduction section, but rather starts with a section called 'Motivations of Volunteers' which could be considered an introduction, but I feel like its an important topic in its own. The context is definitely relevant, but is extremely limited to just a few sections. The dates mentioned in the text are older, being in the early 2000s, which may be able to be updated by now. Content is missing in regards to medical volunteering so I think there is some room for me to add about that. Currently, a majority of the article is dedicated to dental volunteering which is very important, but surely not the full scope. From personal research, I think that the ethics section of this article can be greatly expanded with recommendations provided as well.

Although the article mostly discusses dental volunteering, which shows the writers expertise, the tone of the article still seems to be neutral. This article is also made up of a mix of recent and dated sources to support the facts provided, but the citations are not as often as many other pages I've seen. Their references page is pretty lengthy, but most of their references are cited simultaneously following very simple facts presented. The sources seem pretty relevant (many about dental volunteers) and are written by a variety of different authors. The sources have working links (for what I was able to check). The article is concise, but some parts seem to have questionable wording/sentence framing. There were no grammatical errors that immediately stood out to me. In terms of organization, I think it is well organized for the most part, but I wonder if a section on the history of medical volunteering in the beginning of the article would improve the cohesiveness.

There are no images within the article, which again, I feel like could easily turn a reader away from being attracted to read. With this article, the Talk page is also pretty empty and only a handful of edits have been made. It seems that what was discussed on the Talk page (a recommendation) may have been implemented. The article is rated Start-class which allows me to infer that it is relatively new and has room for many improvements. The article can definitely use a Lead section that introduces the reader and invites them in to read all that the article entails. It would also be useful for the article to include more specific headings to provide the reader with an clear idea of what information they will be able to find within the article. Like I mentioned prior, the article would have a more diverse perspective if it expanded on medical volunteering as this is very prevalent topic in today's time. Overall, it is a good article, but can definitely use a significant amount of work to be considered a higher rating.