User:Mtesta4/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: Chief physician
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because firstly, it is related to the topics we have discussed in class. A Chief physician is an integral aspect to each specific department in a hospital and this position was briefly seen in the documentary we watched and in one of the first article's that we read. Secondly, this article has relatively little information. Considering the several branches of chief positions, I am surprised to see such little information, facts, and even links to other pages. Ultimately, this article could certainly be expanded.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead is rather concise and essentially consists of the entire article itself. The introductory sentence is one of the three sentences of the entire article itself; while it does describe the article's topic, it essentially is a dictionary definition of the term "chief physician". The article does not have any additional sections which is interesting considering what information could accompany the description of a "chief physician", such as specific chiefs in different departments or even references to pop culture or fiction. The Lead is ultimately the entire article. Additionally, the Lead briefly describes the role of a chief physician in a hospital, aside from its definition.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is certainly relevant to the topic; again, the article blatantly defines a "chief physician". The content is essentially up-to-date because definitions don't often change. There is certainly content that is missing. The article lacks secondary information, such as either links more specific versions of "chief physicians", such as "chief of surgery". The article does not even mention specific breakdowns of this term; additionally, other articles that I have read related to medical positions and terminology have made references to examples in fiction and television. Due to the lack of information in this article, this would help to provide other links to describe the role of chief physicians. The article also has a large chart under the references section labeled medicine that includes special medical departments and their specialties and subspecialties. All of these are linked to their respective Wikipedia sites, but they don't really relate directly to this particular article. The last sentence is also very vague, stating that chief physicians have several "areas of responsibility" which his rather ambiguous and unclear.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is definitely neutral because there are no claims that are biased towards a particular side. The lack of information in this article essentially prevents that from happening. I think that a viewpoint that is possibly underrepresented is the social and financial aspect of this position. For example, there is no reference to any notable chief physician or any statistics about estimated salary and the such. The article does not encourage persuasion became there is no position to either favor or be against. However, a lack of claims and evidential support does seem to weaken the present content itself.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
There are only two factual references found in this article. The first one is a link to online Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of the word "chief" intended to verify the explanation of a chief physician. This does not necessarily add any validity or significant information to the article itself. Secondly, in briefly explaining the role of a chief physician, the article has a second reference to a site on healthcare administration degree programs, where a small article explains how to become a chief of medicine. The second source being the more thorough of the two, it does not seem to be the most reliable or reflective of the most pertinent literature on this information. This latter source, however, is up to date, being updated in 2020. There are several other links to certain words in the Lead that work, such as "attending physicians" and "hospital". There are two additional links at the bottom of the page, deeming this article a "stub" which, according to Wikipedia, is "an article deemed too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". There are links suggesting to expand this hospital-related article and this article about an occupation.

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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well-written, just very basic. It is certainly clear and concise. I would not categorize it as organized because it does not need to be; there are no subsections of the article. There are no grammatical or spelling errors in this article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
This article does not include any images at all, therefore no captions either.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
This article is a part of three WikiProjects: Occupations, Hospitals, and Medicine, all deemed as low-importance. No conversations happened but there were some visible changes made in 2016. The page was initially titled "Chief Physician" but was requested to be moved to "Chief physician" because the claim was that the capitalization would only apply if referring to a specific person. It seems that Wikipedia deems this article necessary to be re-evaluated and expanded which what we have discussed in class extensively.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
The article's overall status is poor, however, that truly depends on what content is especially necessary. The strength of the article is that it does explain what a chief physician is but that is about it. To improve the article, more necessary links can be added, better literature can be sourced, and more information can be included regarding the specificities of this position. Overall, the article is underdeveloped. It has a foundation that can be expanded to improve its content and impact.

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:Chief physician