User:Celiahoang/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: Medicare Part D
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * With increased use of high-cost speciality drugs and aging of the Baby Boomer population, it is important to understand what Medicare Part D is.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead did include an introductory sentence that defined the article's topic. While it was clear, it could have been more concise. Because it has not been updated for a while, the Lead did not include all of the topic's major sections, but also did not present new information not discussed the later sections.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The article's content was detailed and relevant to the topic. However, because Part D is always changing, it is currently not up-to-date. Some information is out-dated (from 2013) and needs to be updated.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Language used in the article was neutral, not over- or under-representing a specific opinion. One potential issue that it did highlight the criticisms of Part D, but failed to mention the benefits that it has. This may be simply because it is outdated.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
Overall, the quality of sources were good. A few sources were drawn from primary literature, but most were directly from CMS or from secondary sources such as Kaiser Family Foundation or New York Times. Most sources were current (within the last 5 years), while others were outdated. Links do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The article overall was well-written without any apparent grammatical or spelling errors. It was clear and concise for a topic that is convoluted. Sections were organized well.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Images and media evaluation
There are no images, except one table that is outdated.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talk page evaluation
Most conversations were dated before 2010. These conversations did address how to present the topic. The only recent post was to update the article. It is part of Wikiproject Barack Obama, Pharmacology, and United States.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Overall evaluation
I would rate this article a B-. It has a good organization, but simply needs to be updated with the new changes to Medicare Part D and provide more information of the cost/benefits of the program.

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: