User:Nbnmaria/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Lifestyle medicine

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I'm interested in Lifestyle Medicine and the approach it takes to preventing chronic conditions. I believe that lifestyle and behavioral changes are important to treating diseases and requires a holistic view from both the clinician and patient. My preliminary impression of the article is that it has the basic idea but requires more in-depth information.

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: Overall good, but can be more concise. The introductory sentence might be a bit lengthy, and the lead section does not provide a brief description of the article major sections.

Content: The content may be a little outdated, and it does not deal with wp's equity gaps nor address topics related to underrepresented populations or topics which it has the potential to do so. There are no misrepresentation of marginalized groups which is good.

Tone: The article contains a neutral tone and is not heavily biased towards a particular position. Viewpoints are accurately represented and does not persuade the reader towards any certain view or position.

Sources: Some references are from international journals, so the sources are reliable with diverse spectrum of authors. Links are still active and working. Each fact is referenced with a source.

Organization and writing quality: Content is well organized and fairly easy to read. Additional sections could be included with images or media.

Talk page: The article is rated as a start-class with mid-importance. There's not much talk or the comments are irrelevant.

Overall impression: The article is semi-good with adequate sources, but the content could be improved on. The article is a bit underdeveloped and requires more context to be complete.