User:Datadecathlete/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:Health equity
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article to evaluate because my education and experience focuses on health disparities among people with disabilities, and intellectual disabilities in particular.

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 section is a good, high-level overview of the topic. It does mention some of the concepts that come later in the article, but not all of them necessarily and doesn't include a brief description really either. For the most part, the Lead has just information that is relevant to later sections and is not overly detailed. ====

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 wiki article on health equity provides a nice, comprehensive overview of the traditionally taught health disparities, around race/ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status. However, unsurprisingly, there is no mention of inequities for people with disabilities and intellectual disability in particular. Most of the information is relevant, but it could be organized more succinctly. For example, there are several sections that describe economic inequality and the relationship with health, and I would recommend reorganizing in order to feel less repetitive. Also, there are some references that are particularly outdated and as mentioned, significant omissions. There is one line on how African American women are more likely to die from breast cancer than white women, but my understanding is that this disparity is in part due to poor access but also due to underlying differences in the pathology of the cancers themselves. I would probably recommend the original contributor expand upon this to make it more clear what elements are inequitable and which are more unequal. Further, as mentioned above, there are no references to disability which is quite an oversight. Another aspect that is lacking is a framework for health inequities, such as the one from the Robert Wood Johnson foundation. ====

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: The article seems relatively neutral and is relatively well referenced. Disability is woefully underrepresented. I would say that relative to how much research there is on it, sexual orientation inequities may be slightly overrepresented, but it didn’t seem to be too excessive. ====

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: Nearly each statement is sourced. Most of the sources are academic with some mixture of grey literature and news stories. Some are a bit outdated. One of the references I checked didn't 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: As mentioned above, the writing quality is fine, but it's a bit disorganized and fragmented. I didn't catch any spelling errors, but some grammatical errors (commas missing). ====

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: The article only has one image an it's a cool infographic about inequity in England and Wales. I believe there are several additional images that would be relevant to include, most notably a framework or two on inequity and determinant of health. ====

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: The talk page has very little going on behind the scenes. It's mostly a discussion of updating links instead of anything about how to represent the information. The article is part of the Wikiproject for Medicine, for Health and fitness, and for Sociology. For each of the three projects, it's rated B-class, and is low importance for Health and fitness and for Sociology, but High-importance for medicine. ====

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?

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: