User:Caramc456/sandbox

Article Evaluation

 * 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