User:Casssandrang/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: Maternal mortality in the United States
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I've chosen to evaluate this article as it pertains to the food, health, and environment course I'm currently enrolled in. In general, when speaking of maternal mortality rates, I've found that the discussion often emphasizes the problems within developing countries. However, maternal health is just as concerning in developed countries such as the US. In places where health systems have been established and technology is superb, why are so many women still suffering? I intend to explore the sociocultural and environmental factors that contribute to maternal mortality within the United States.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think some information in the lead can be condensed.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Perhaps the pros/cons of at-home births with midwives or doulas. Environmental risks could also be explored.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there can be more discussion about the correlation between age and maternal mortality.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * 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
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Minimal
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Yes
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It's rated as a C-Class article and is part of two WIkiProjects, Medicine and Women's Health.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Wikipedia presents a broader scope on the topic and places importance on adequate sourcing from extensive literature.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? It's a C-class article with high importance.
 * What are the article's strengths? It uses a lot of statistics and sources.
 * How can the article be improved? More can be addressed regarding social and environmental factors of maternal health.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I think it is well-developed, but there's always room for improvement.

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: