User:Corrinfish/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: (link) Medical ethics
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate - I have chosen this article because Medical ethics have always been an intriguing topic to me. In addition, I study this topic in undergraduate but also plan to pursue a career in the field of medical ethics.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - the intro sentence gives a brief understanding of what medical ethics is and gives a clear statement delivering what is going to be discussed in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - The Lead talks about the branches of ethics, the article dives deep into these branches and what they are. However, the Lead including the analyzation of scientific research in medical ethics is not a major section talked upon in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - Yes, the introduction sentence discusses analyzing scientific research in the field of medical ethics, the article does not elaborate on this topic.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The lead is clear cut and concise, not extensive details, very brief.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? The article dives very deep into the topic of Medical Ethics, but the content is considered relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? The article consists of much more history than recent up-to-date content in regards to the topic of Medical Ethics.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - The article should elaborate on the research and clinal aspect of Medical Ethics. In the medical field, Medical Ethics plays a huge role in the clinical and hospital setting. Physicians duties, patients wishes are all clinical components of Medical Ethics that are present in an every-day day in the hospital or clinical setting. In addition, Medical Ethics also play a role in the researching side of the medical field as well.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, the article is not composed of Wikepedia's known equity gap.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? The article has a clear neutral view point with no bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Some instances I thought there was a bias view point but it was backed with evidence proving there is in fact proof of why some doctors are biased toward a particular issue.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - No.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the article provides a lot of facts, definitions and statements, with no persuasion present.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the facts are indeed backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, the sources are concise and very thorough.
 * Are the sources current? The majority of the sources are out of date with a few within the past 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - Yes, the sources are very diverse, with a vast of different authors and time frame.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes the links throughout the article do work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The extensive details and concise introductory sentence helps to easily read and understand the text.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? As I read through the article. I did not see any obvious spelling or grammatical errors.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, there are several sections that are broke down reflecting major points of the topic. However, even with a table of content, the article can be looked at as disorganized as it is hard to follow; jumping from topic to topic, instead of easing into the next topic.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - There are only two images included in the article, although the image only implies upon a small detail in the article, they do not help to enhance the understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? - The caption is very brief, does not elaborate on why the image is being portrayed and what is it in detail.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The images are cited to adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No, the images are small, not appealing, and not many pictures to help enhance the articles content.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? - Discussing what the article is lacking, giving suggestions on how to properly organize the page as some beloved it was scattered and some stressed to eliminate some portions of the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? B-Class - High / Top Importance. This article has been a part of Medicine, Philosophy and Religion WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? The articles overall status was written well with a lot of detail just a few minor things added and taken out can narrow down the understanding of what exactly is Medical Ethics.
 * What are the article's strengths? - The extensive research and detail brought by each main point helps to throughly understand the topic of Medical Ethics.
 * How can the article be improved? - Focusing in on a few elements of Medical Ethics, the article is very busy, making it more difficult to understand with so much being presented at once.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? - Overall, the article is very well-developed with varying components of the topic.

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: