User:Joseph0618/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: John Shaw Billings
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I decided to evaluate this article because it has a decent amount of information, but I don't believe it has enough information for someone as important as John Shaw Billings. The article is also very pertinent to the course as John Shaw Billings was responsible for the construction of the Johns Hopkins University Hospital.

Lead

 * Guiding questions
 * The Lead does contain an introductory sentence that sums up who John Shaw Billings was. However, it doesn't contain a brief description of the article's major sections. It mentions some factual pieces of information that implies further elaboration throughout the article, but again, there is no explicit description of what will be included. The Lead doesn't include information that isn't present in the article, everything that is mentioned is elaborated on elsewhere. The Lead is a bit overly detailed and quite lengthy, although I am unsure of which parts should be removed. The information provided seems relevant, perhaps the wording could be improved to be more concise.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's content is relevant to the topic at hand, as it provides key pieces of information on John Shaw Billings such as his achievements and affiliation with Johns Hopkins University. The content is up-to-date, and cannot really be updated due to the fact that John Shaw Billings is now deceased. There could be a lot more information regarding his involvement in the construction in Johns Hopkins Hospital. There are a plethora of articles and papers that explain how John Shaw Billings incorporated various architectural choices worldwide to create the best hospital he could. The content that is already on the page seems to be relevant to John Shaw Billings and shouldn't be removed.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions
 * The article does seem neutral in its tone in explaining the different factual pieces of information on John Shaw Billings. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position and the article does a good job of providing the facts while keeping it objective. Since John Shaw Billings is a historical figure, there are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented necessarily, the article as a whole doesn't seem too charged in either direction. The article does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another and just provides a clear, factual representation of John Shaw Billings.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * Most facts in the article are backed up by reliable secondary sources of information, but there are some that have no citation. The sources aren't too thorough, which is highlights by the fact that it excludes the articles we were given in this course that talked a lot about John Shaw Billings and his hard work in creating the hospital. The sources are a mix of current as well as old documents. For instance, there is an article that was retrieved May 3, 2017, but there is also one from 1888. The links provided in the sources page do work.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions
 * The article is decently written, some sentences can be cleaned up.There are no grammatical or spelling errors found in the article, there are some sections that could be cleaned up. For example, the article states that Billings' "medical curricula and partitioning of faculty...were not unprecedented at that time." This is a double negative and it can be made more clear by a simple substitution of phrasing. The article is organized well, however, there can always be improvements made to categorize it a bit better, perhaps adding more sections.


 * 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
 * The article includes very few pictures that enhance understanding of the topic. The images that are provided are captioned well. As the images are still up on the page, it would seem that they adhere with Wikipedia's copyright regulations. The images are laid out properly, but there are a lot of images that could be added to the article overall.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions
 * There is some conversation happening on the talk page regarding the factuality of some of the information on the page. For instance, one user argues that John Shaw Billings cannot be labeled as the father of the United States Public Health Service. It is rated as C-Class and low-importance. It is a part of multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Biography/Military and WikiProject United States/Militaryhistory and many more. Wikipedia discusses the topic a bit differently as it assesses and critiques the factual information provided, while in class we typically discuss our thoughts on the readings and the most important details. We typically assume most of the information we read about is factual and we compile the information to create a cohesive picture.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The article's overall status is rated quite low and it definitely can be improved. The article is a strong core article, containing key pieces of information, but lacks depth. The article can therefore be improved with more information all around, especially the section pertaining to John Shaw Billings' involvement with Johns Hopkins. The article is underdeveloped and can be made more whole with the addition of more information.


 * 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:Talk:John Shaw Billings