User:Packarec3037/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hypertension

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 chose to evaluate the hypertension article because it is such a prevalent problem, so many people would be looking at the article. An article that has a lot of people reading and absorbing the information needs to be correct. My first impression was that it was very lengthy, had a lot of links, many words I did not understand, but seemed to be cited well at first glance.

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.)

The lead sentence of the article is concise and easy to understand and sets up the article well. The lead also mentions most of the major sections in some way and gives a brief overview of them and there is no information in the lead that is not somewhere else in the article. Overall the lead is concise and easy to read.

The content in the article is very informative and up to date with current information. It sticks to the topic while also delving into different components of hypertension. The page also has a section about society and culture and how it relates to hypertension, touching on the economic effects. They also discuss the difference of rates of hypertension in varying races. The article is written in a neutral tone, with varying viewpoints and topics covered.

There are sources used for almost every statement made in the article. The article also uses reputable sources, such as the CDC, medical journals, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Some of the sources are no longer available, but many are thorough and have good content and are written with people of all kinds of backgrounds.

The article is organized well with different headings and subheadings. I also did not catch any grammatical errors. There are a couple images and graphics in the article and all have descriptions and are placed in useful places.

On the talk page, there is not much being said. There are a few suggestions that are made and updating of sources. Overall, I think this is an informative article that would be a good read for general knowledge about hypertension. It could use a few improvements like updating sources and making sure there is no repetition.