User:Epant25/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: Healthcare in Mexico
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate: I find healthcare systems an incredibly interesting, and also important subject to study and educate people about. I also opened up the article page and saw that it was of a shorter length than other articles, which makes it apparently seem like some additions would be necessary here.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes a summary of what entities provide healthcare in Mexico, but does not accurately or concisely summarize what is referred to by "Healthcare in Mexico".
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead includes a brief description of most of the articles' sections, but does leave out important information about others— affordability and social determinants.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information which is not elaborated on further in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise, but it may be overly so. It could be added to, could provide more key details about the topic, and do a better job of introducing it.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content presented in the article has a clear relationship to the main topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The latest information provided from the article dates back to 2013, which makes it seem like the article is in entirely not up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is a great deal of content that is missing. The "Private healthcare delivery" section has only one sentence added to it. The addition of subtopics related to this article, as well as the expansion of other existing ones— like Mexico's universal health policy and the "affordability" section, are also clearly needed. The existing content all contains substantive elements of relevancy, however.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article appears to present an objective view of the healthcare system. There appear to be no instances of distinguishable bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There appears to be very little claims that could be considered biased in the article. One distinguishable element of bias can be found in the area where the article mentions only instances in which primary health organizations and individuals have praised the Mexican healthcare system.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There is little elaboration of most of the viewpoints presented, and there are no apparent instances of overrepresentation evident. Underrepresented viewpoints are quite abundant, however, and this can be seen at most sections of the article.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article remains objective for most of the article, although the above instance, mentioned in the second question, could be seen as a deviation from this.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * For the most part, facts are cited properly and backed up by reliable sources. There are key points of information, however, that are not attributed to any source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There is a limited amount of sources listed— and they probably for the roughly reflect the available literature. An expansion of this, however, could create a more accurate portrayal of this.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources appear relatively recent, although more recent sources could be added to this to create a more accurate article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Some of the links I attempted to verify led to the wrong site or to an irrelevant one, but most did lead to an appropriate site.

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?

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article includes an adequate amount of images. Whether they enhance understanding of the subject is a questionable assumption. These media could do a better job of expanding upon the information provided in the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are appropriately captioned.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The images appear to adhere to WIkipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The images provided are organized well, and contribute positively to the article's overall appearance.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Very few active conversations have occurred on the page, and just a few individual comments can be seen on the page. They are mostly related to bringing up not factual information, link errors, and questioning the relevance of certain included topics.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-Class and of low-importance by one entity and mid-importance by another. It is a part of WikiProject Mexico and WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have talked about healthcare sparingly in class, but I feel that in discussion we would probably address it in a different manner in comparison to the how Wikipedia does.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article is rated as C-Class.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article does a good job of determining and summarizing the different mechanisms of healthcare in Mexico, and employs important and appropriate statistics in order to convey some notions, particularly healthcare coverage and policy history.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Expansion on existing subtopics included in the conversation, as well as the addition of other relevant topics, are areas in which improvement could be made. Additionally, the inclusion of more recent sources, and the improvement of source attribution are necessary.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article, in my opinion, is severely underdeveloped. It has basic subtopics included, and slim summaries of these that convey some knowledge, but not enough to be able to reap a complete understanding from it.

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: Talk:Healthcare in Mexico