User:Jnk03/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: Medical anthropology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I thought it would be cool to read a bit about medical anthropology as I evaluate the article because it is a topic that I am interested in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead gives a succinct overview of the article's material.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Not really. Most of the sources are from the 1990s.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Content evaluation
The article was last updated on 5/29/2020. The content is sorted properly under its subtopics; however, it draws from mostly sources from the 90s.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * In most sections.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, but one section doesn't have any citations, so it seems to be original research, which is the assumptions made by the editor.
 * 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

Tone and balance evaluation
The article seems mainly neutral, but I think there is an issue of original research in the section of "Applied medical anthropology"

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * No
 * Are the sources current?
 * Only a few
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The section on "Applied medical anthropology" does not cite any sources. The majority of the sources that are cited were published in the 1990s.

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?
 * No
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

Images and media evaluation
The articles include no images. Perhaps images could be included in the "Historical background" and the "Popular medicine and medical systems" sections. Images of the different medical systems could enhance the article.

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 a discussion about taking direct quotes from or paraphrasing the source material. Another conversation discusses revising the grammar of the article. A third conversation asks other Wikipedians to review an edit on the external links. Another person also wondered what to do with the "Applied medical anthropology" section because it does not have any citations.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is part of two WikiProjects: Anthropology and Medicine. In Anthropology, the article is rated as Start-Class on the quality scale, but it does not have a rating on the importance scale. In Medicine, the article is rated as B-Class on the quality scale and as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We have not explicitly talked about medical anthropology, but I think our discussions about racial science and the poor treatment of black people by white physicians could fall under this category.

Talk page evaluation
The talk page was last updated in Oct. 2019, so it is not very up-to-date. It also seems more like people posing questions that are never answered.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * I think article has potential to be a good source of information about medical anthropology, but it needs to be developed more, which is indicated by its ratings.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * Of the material that was properly cited, I thought it was well-written and easy to understand.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Proper citation is needed for one of the sections, and I think more information should be added to the sections. I also think more current sources should be used to inform the content of the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is still underdeveloped, as seen by the lack of citations in one section. The article itself is also very short compared to many others.

Overall evaluation
The article was less interesting than I thought it would be, mostly due to its limited content.

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: