User:Mkaddache/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Healthcare in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it sets the stage for a topic I’m highly interested in, Public Health, as the failings of medical infrastructure is what led to the prominence of my field. I also do not know a lot of the actual history of Healthcare and how over centuries, certain areas of health have advanced in a positive direction while others have taken a different turn. My preliminary opinion of this article is that it is incredibly detailed with many sections and subsections with clearly outlined sources.

Evaluate the article
In the lead section, there is a clear introductory sentence that clearly describes what healthcare in the United States is made up of and the circumstances behind its funding, a big cause of concern. It gave many other insights after the main intro sentence, however, it wasn't entirely clear what the main sections of the article were going to be about. I think it was appropriately detailed in regards to the potential nuances regarding healthcare, however, it would be nice to have the lead section clearly define at least the major sections of the article. For the actual content, I do believe that the article stayed relatively true to the topic, providing lots of information regarding different areas of healthcare and its debates. Considering that the article is more focused on the real life situations surrounding healthcare, I do believe that the content is up-to-date, however, there is more that could be added in regards to the impact of drug companies. I do believe that every single section is relevant because many things are tied to healthcare in the US. Something excellent about this article is that the entire topic is intrinsically tied to the worsening equity gaps and how historically underrepresented populations have been impacted by the healthcare system, therefore dealing with one issue regarding Wikipedia. The article does a good job of staying neutral, providing descriptions and statistics from governmental sources and as this article does make a claim that the healthcare system is essentially a failure without necessarily stating so, leading to a negative bias on the current system. There were no mentions of minority viewpoints within the article and the article does attempt to persuade the reader that the current system is not working and needs to be improved upon. In regards to credibility, from what I saw, most facts in the article are backed up by reliable sources of information and the sources are very thorough because they are either from established international/national agencies with extensive research or people with reputable backgrounds in healthcare. The sources are quite up-to-date, some from last year and majority within the last 10 years, very current for healthcare journals. Thankfully, all the links work and the sources are very diverse, but do not seem to include any historically marginalized individuals. There are quite a lot of peer-reviewed journals and articles brought in, not just webpages or otherwise. For the organization of the article, I think that some parts are a bit difficult to read and a bit muddled in their delivery of the topic. I think a major highlight in regards to organization is the breakdown of sections, very well broken down into different topics of the article as well as including some subsections to further organize. In the article, there are just a few images (more graphs than actual photos) and I do think they should be included because they help to visualize the difference between US healthcare and other countries with statistics. They all include clear captions and adhere to Wikipedia's copyright legislations. Looking at the talk pages, there hasn't been much conversation at all, just overall posts with three in total and two from me. This article is rated B-class and a part of multiple WikiProjects like Medicine, United States: Government, Nursing, Politics, & Health and Fitness. We didn't really discuss this topic too much in class, but more so addressed the issues surrounding US healthcare and looked at it much more globally than the way this Wikipedia page talks about it. Overall, I think that this article is pretty developed, but there could be additional information added in a few subsections. I do think that the greatest strength of the article is that it is clearly organized into different sections. Also, improving the delivery of certain sections could improve the clarity and make it less muddled in some areas.