User:BiancaSkelton/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: teaching hospital
 * This article has very little information, only having a lead with two additional small sections. It is very short and only gives a brief explanation on what a teaching hospital truly is. It could use expansion on the history section, along with the addition of practices at teaching hospitals, the stages that a doctor-in-training goes through in these hospitals, as well as examples of such hospitals, especially the notable ones. Also, 15/22 lines are about pop culture.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but it includes a phrase that does not mean the same thing as teaching hospital, which is misleading. This is also all that the article has.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, but it does mention topics that should be included in the rest of the article but aren't.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * ^^ Yes, like Graduate Medical Education, research, residency, fellowship, and programs available at teaching hospitals.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Neither, it would be very well done if the rest of the article went along with it.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Barely. I understand why the pop culture section would be included IF the rest of the information was present.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Yes, given there isn't enough data to be out of date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Yes, as stated in question 1c.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article a bit heavy in the pop culture where it looks like someone who's just really into tv shows added all their favorites. Not balanced for facts about teaching hospitals themselves. This article more-so leans towards the use of their idea in TV shows and movies.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Overrepresentation for pop culture, underrepresentation for medical/hospital facts.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes. The overuse of pop culture suggests that they are accurate representations of teaching hospitals which, as has been said by many people connected with real hospitals, is not true (one example here). The use of pop culture seems to glorify teaching hospitals and, as TV shows do, up the dramatics. Rather than only using these as references for the life of doctors in teaching hospitals, this article can use real-life explanations and accounts by real doctors in order to create a more balanced and realistic view of teaching hospitals.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are links to TV shows and their shooting/setting locations. Some information about these shows, though, requires citation such as: "Many patients are surprised to see medical students at their bedside: they know they are in top hospitals without knowing those hospitals are teaching hospitals." This can be fixed by including the name(s) of the show(s) from which this information comes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, although it's very short.
 * 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, although it doesn't have much information to be organized. Only three sections.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * n/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * n/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * n/a

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 are only two "conversations" (one-sided) about the tv show House (TV series) and the since-deleted definition of North America. Not very important to the topic at hand and shows the distraction from teaching hospitals themselves. This indicates a need for the article to be more focused and clear on what it is truly about: teaching hospitals.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * Rated 'start'. No.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * Wikipedia makes it seem far less important and lacks the definitions and history that we've discussed regarding teaching hospitals.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * It's very weak.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It has a pretty good lead and a some pop culture that can be better-explained as to not take away from a true description of teaching hospitals.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * It can include far more information about.... everything.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * It is very underdeveloped. Despite existing for 6 years, it doesn't have much information relevant to its subject. It can use a lot of fixing up.

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: