User:Jlibera1/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: WebMD
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I found it under the "Academic Disciplines" category, which was a recommended category to peruse as part of the assignment. WebMD also has pharmacological relevance given that it pertains to information about human disease.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead's introductory sentence clearly describes the article's topic but can do so in a more concise way.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the second paragraph of the Lead includes information about WebMD's beginnings and merges with other corporations. This information is not mentioned in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is overly detailed with history about the founding and origins of WedMD. This content should be reorganized into the "History" section of the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The article's content is generally relevant to the topic. The article touches on things like WebMD's history and website traffic.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * The content is generally up-to-date; the article mentions that WebMD had many more "unique visitors" in March 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Content related to other health platforms that partner with WebMD should only be mentioned, not elaborated on like the article does. The "Criticism" section should not belong since it is solely opinion-based from news/media sources. Content the more specifically details WebMD's platform and services they provide should be more readily available. Perhaps one can separate the website services from the rest of the company's services to provide better structure for this section.
 * 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 deals with neither of these questions.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * The article's tone is neutral, however its content in the "Criticism" section is skewed toward an unfavorable interpretation.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are claims that are biased toward a criticizing position. However, this is laid out as its own section and is a reflection of the content sited, not the tone of the content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * There are criticizing viewpoints that are overrepresented, as noted by the "Criticism" section.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * By sheer nature of including a "Criticism" section, the article attempts the reader away from a favorable position.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, these sources are mainly from opinion pieces.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources could be more thorough because there is more available literature/information on WebMD than is currently presented in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some sources are 10-15 years old. Most are within 5 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The sources are generally written by a diverse spectrum of authors, but do not include many historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links virtually all work.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article is generally well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The article needs to be re-organized; there are parts in the Lead that should be in the "History" section, and parts of the "History" section that should be in the "Company" section.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


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

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There is no conversation happening on the Talk page. Only 2 major edits were made: one modified external links and the other added more up-to-date content to the "Criticism" section.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated as "Start-class, Mid-important" and is part of 5 WikiProjects.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * There is no difference. The discussion is neutral, unassuming, and cordial.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article's overall status is probably low to mid tier. It is generally clear, yet lacks the structure and organization to add more relevant sections.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * The article's strengths are its conciseness and clarity.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * The article can be improved by adding a section that delineates the web services from other services WebMD offers. The article can also be improved by reorganizing certain material that is already present into other sections of the page.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article would be "in development" (or underdeveloped) as there could be better organization that could help facilitate the introduction of new material and improve the completeness of the page.

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: