User:DiazFern8/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: Free clinic
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I chose this article as it has many subsections that correlate to my sources in some way. It also is a broad overview of the work my organization is involved in.

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 has an introductory sentence that clearly describes what free clinics are and what is their function. The lead includes a some of the major sections, yet it fails to highlight some key ideas. Yes, they talk about Narcotics in the lead and fail to follow up on that idea. I would classify the lead as overly detailed in some aspects coming off as redundant.

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
All the content of the article is relevant to the topic. The content is fairly up to date as most sources are younger than 20 years old. As well as the most recent sources being from 2017. It fails to go into detail about the patient demographics beyond basic income and age groups. There is also some room to grow regarding what are the cons that come with free clinics.

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 does not appears neutral. There seems to be a very pro free clinic sentiment. There seems to be an attempt to persuade the reader towards the position of pro free clinics as there are some information that is lacking. Noticeable the struggles and cons of a free clinic.

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
The sources are up to date and all links I have tried work. The sources are relevant, and the citations are from respectable locations. The post is flagged for needing more verification in general thus there is a lack of sources in particular areas.

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 organization of the article needs some work as it makes little sense the order topics are presented. There is no grammatical or spelling errors making it fairly easy to read.

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 contains in total 2 images and 2 charts. The images have short but functioning captions.The imagines are laid out in a very basic but functional way.

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
This page is part of the Wikiproject Medicine and is rated a C-Class in terms of quality. There is also talk about how some claims are not well cited. As well as ideas for more subsections to add to the article like “free clinics elsewhere in the world”.

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
The article shines in its writing style, simplifying the jargon into laymen terms. The article can be improved by adding more citations to the individual claims being made. As well as  adding more images and charts related to the topic. The article is reasonably complete yet there are some details that need to be added in order to consider it “complete”.

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: