User:Caramc456/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nurse practitioner

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.)

I chose this article because it relates to my major and my future occupation. This article is important to me so that I gain an understanding of the roles/responsibilities of a NP, education/training requirements and more. When I first went onto the article it was flagged for multiple issues so I knew I had to be aware of possible mistakes.

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.)


 * Good lead section: Clear and concise introductory sentence about the topic
 * Not all information in the article is relevant. The article included a section titled, "Controversies and criticism," briefly describing two student accounts of poor-quality training at their colleges. With only two claims, it should not be labeled as a controversy. This section was not relevant to the topic.
 * Put too much weight on the section titled, "Scope of Practice."
 * Article underrepresented information about the education/training and did not include enough detail about the responsibilities of a NP.
 * The overall tone of the article appears to be neutral, however there are pieces of disputable information.
 * Included incorrect information referring to NP's as a "mid-level practitioner." This statement is very controversial and can be argued otherwise.
 * In the section, "Quality of Care," the writer describes a study that found that NP's and PA's were more likely to overprescribe opioids. I don't see how this information was relevant to information about NP's.
 * The article is focused primarily on NP's in the United States and not globally.
 * The history was focused in Canada and United States... Why?
 * All the links work and are up to date
 * The article relies heavily on primary resources and some are unreliable.
 * Not all of the facts in the article are backed up by a secondary source of information.
 * Not all the information is accurate
 * "NP requires between 1.5 and 3 years of post-baccalaureate training"- They require a Master's degree
 * Does not include all the NP programs/specialties
 * "Therefore, experience as a registered nurse is not required to become a nurse practitioner."-
 * The article is easy to read and well organized.
 * "Nurse Practitioner" was nominated as a Natural Science good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria.
 * The article is in interest to the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Nursing, WikiProject Occupations, and WikiProject Medicine
 * In the talk page there is a lot of criticism and feedback.
 * I would not recommend this article