User:Katielewis02/Evaluate an Article

User:Katielewis02/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Rural Health

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because improving rural access to healthcare is one discipline in medicine that I am passionate about. I am from a rural area in New Hampshire, so I encounter many people in my community who struggle to obtain quality healthcare. This topic is important because residents of rural areas have unique health needs, but very few physicians provide care in these areas. My preliminary impression of the article was that it included a variety of subtopics underlying rural health, but the information was limited and seemed disorganized.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead Section: The lead section of this page is not very strong. The introductory sentence does a nice job introducing the topic, but the following paragraphs lose sight of the overall purpose of a lead section. There is no overview of the contents of the page, and the last paragraph of the lead section includes distracting information.

Content: The content of this article is very imbalanced. It focuses heavily on some sections while neglecting others. There also seems to be a lot of random facts cited throughout the sections that make the overall message difficult to extract

Tone and Balance: The article doesn't try to persuade readers in any one direction and appears to have a neutral tone.

Sources and References: There are a variety of sources cited in this article from a diverse span of authors and publication years. There are over 100 sources cited, so I am not sure they are all quality or up to date information. It seems like some primary research articles are cited and discussed in detail, which indicates that there could be better information presented within the sections.

Organization and Quality of Writing: The article seems disorganized and the quality of writing is very poor. The order of sub-sections don't always flow clearly and some of the sections seem like they don't belong. There are also some sentences that don't flow from one to another back to back. Even though wikipedia is supposed to be written in plain language, there could be better word choice utilized to make a better article

Images and Media: The images included don't enhance the article. The image on telehealth is well captioned, but the others are not.

Talk Page Discussion: The article is graded a C on the talk page. There is very minimal discussion on the talk page.

Overall Impressions: I think the article does a good job trying to include all of the nuances of rural health, but does so in a very disorganized way. The quality of writing is very poor and could use some editing. I also think there are better sources that could be used to give more accurate/useful information.