User:Moblit/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
History of Medicine

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate the History of medicine article because it directly relates to out subject of study in my research methods. The article itself is quite vast with numerous different sub sections on the development and understanding of health throughout the world from antiquity to the present. In general I found the article to be very informative and compiled nicely.

Evaluate the article
The lead section includes a dense yet useful introduction to the topic and the numerous events and ideas throughout history that will be addressed in the article.


 * The introductory sentence is simple yet concise in introducing the topic and what it covers.
 * The intro does cover most of what can be found in the content of the article yet I do not see much intro into the application of the theory throughout certain subsections such as in the medieval times and more recent history.

The content within is quite vast, with worldwide applications from antiquity to the present of the History of Medicine.


 * The content presented is very relevant to the topic of the article.
 * Some content throughout does seem underdeveloped, such as the content relating to the practice throughout the second world war and use of medicine by unethical groups.

The balance and tone of the article is strongly neutral with an unbiased look and works heavily on producing and supporting information directly relating to the topic.

There is a large number of sources to cover the many topics and references the article makes.


 * Almost all sections have at least one citation.
 * All of the links I personally checked seemed to work.

The organization of the article is very direct and easy to read with a clear separation between subsections, whether it relates to separate countries or a wider time frame.

The writing in the article seems to be quite professional and easily read.


 * Some phrasing and content within the larger subsections comes off as murky or underdeveloped.

The article includes many images that directly relate to the conversation and provide much needed context at times.


 * The images are laid out in a way that directly ties them to their respective topics.

The talk page includes many other voices and many ideas at changes to be made to the article.


 * There are many discussions on overall content of the article, sources used, and grammar and wording among other things.
 * The article is of interest to two separate WikiProjects and is rated as a level-3 vital article.
 * This article mentions and discuses much of the same material that we are currently discussing in class.

Overall the article itself is very long and quite dense with a lot of information but in this specific topic, that is to be expected.


 * The overall development of the article is substantial with many different subsections and related categories nicely organized.
 * As I mentioned, there are small fixes and some places for development of ideas and examples put forth.