User:Bryanna Jones/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Healthcare in Mexico - Wikipedia)

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

The reason I chose this article is that healthcare in general holds a huge importance to me. After working in a hospital, it has made me realize what gaps healthcare have here and especially in healthcare around the world. While I gave it a quick read through, I can see that it is already pretty detailed, but I can't wait to find ways to improve it even more.

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.)

Lead section:
A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? -  Yes, the leading section includes a concise aspect of what the article is about 
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? -  It is more discussing a brief statement, not entirely providing what the major sections may be 
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) - It seems as though that the information is accurate and does not stray from what the main article is about
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead section is overall concise; it is short and sweet delivering a good introduction to what information is provided 

Content:
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? - The articles contents seem relative to the topics
 * Is the content up-to-date? - As far as it looks, yes, but there is always room for improvement to see if something new has changed
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - I haven't managed to find anything yet
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - It was why I choose this article, it speaks upon the facts of underrepresented populations and topics

Tone and Balance:
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral? - The overall tone of the article feels quite neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - Not so far, again it appears to be quite neutral
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - In some cases, yes, I believe that health statistics and what the healthcare sees could be added upon
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? -
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - So far it isn't persuasive, more heavily relies on facts

Sources and References:
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - From clicking the links it seems as though a lot of the sources are reliable and backed up
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes they give quite a lot information
 * Are the sources current? - Some are older and some are newer, it would be likely to find more sources that have current material to it
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes it seems as though the sources have a wide backgrounds various between different authors
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - Yes there are definitely more sources that have better coverage that could be noted or added into the context of certain sections
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes a lot of them work

Organization and writing quality:
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - It is very well written and the text flows easily
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? - None that I have found so far
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - The broken down sections on major topics seem to appear well organized

Images and Media:

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - I've only seen a few, might need some more pictures added
 * Are images well-captioned? - The few pictures that are there are well captioned and to the point
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - It would appear so, yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - They could be altered to seem more visually appealing

Talk page discussion:
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - There are no conversations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? - A "C" grading
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? - A little, wikipeida has a large frame of covering things in major detail

Overall impressions:

 * What is the article's overall status? - Well written, straight to the point, factual
 * What are the article's strengths? - It is strongly written and the facts are widely based from many topics
 * How can the article be improved? - More context, more sources, and visual details
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - I'd say it is well developed.