User:RoxanneLIS/Evaluate an Article

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

Social Determinants of Health

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 this page for editing for three main reasons:

·        The subject matter is of personal and professional interest to me. I am very interested in health equity and the underlying causes of poor health outcomes that have to do with social factors rather than genetics.

·        The article has been rated as start-class on Wikipedia’s content assessment scale.

·        The article is rated as mid-importance on the project’s (WikiProject Health and fitness) importance scale.

My preliminary impression of the article is that the structure seems random and disorganized.

Evaluate the article

 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * I think the introductory sentence is adequate in communicating the main idea of the page.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does not include a description of the article's main sections.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)
 * Yes, the lead references social determinants of mental health and of obesity, neither of which receive much attention in the article.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes, the lead is concise.

Content
A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * The content is relevant.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Much of the content is up-to-date, although I do see several references that are 8-10 years older or more. I would need to examine these more closely to see how important the date is relative to the kind of information being presented. Some of the seminal work (e.g. Michael Marmot) was written some time ago; however, I would expect to see more current citations for some of the hard data.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would expect to see the section on Economics more fleshed out, with content pertaining to employment, food access, and housing as separate subsections within that broader category.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Race and gender are topics within the page, as they are factors in SDOH.

Tone and Balance
Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * It seems largely neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The writing does not appear to be heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article discussed individualization of health outcomes as an alternative theory/policy approach; I believe the space allotted to it is sufficient.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
 * Yes, as per above.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * I do think the article is mildly persuasive; it is clear that the writer(s) support the idea of SDOH signficance in health outcomes.

Sources and References
A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are a few statements that I believe require some substantiation. They will be a focus of my work on the article
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There seems to be a good breadth and variety of sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Some are current; some are not. I'll do a literature search to see if some of the sources should be updated with newer material.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The names of authors appear to be diverse and the authors are not only from the U.S. I would need to do additional research to see if historically marginalized voices are among them.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The sources appear to be largely high-quality or peer-reviewed (JAMA; WHO; Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics; Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law; etc.) However, there are six statements marked “Citation needed” so those would certainly be a good place to start.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * I checked a few of the listed External links. Several worked but some were problematic and will be a fruitful area for me to work on:
 * This one seemed of low-quality: HEALTH IS WEALTH – 7 REASONS CONVINCING WHY?
 * Three had broken links: The determinants of health (World Health Organization); The Social Context of Health Behaviors - Paula Braveman; Drivers for Health Equity

Organization and writing quality
The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article shows signs of multiple authors. In some places it is well written; in others, less so.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are a few grammar issues I plan to tighten up. There is nothing too egregious.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * As far as the structure that follows, I don’t think it’s ideal. I’m not sure yet how I would change it (if, in fact, I address structural issues in the edits I make) but I think the current structure lacks logical flow and coherence.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * There are two images in the article. I don't think either of them particularly enhances understanding.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No. The first one would be useful if it had a legend. The second one is far too packed with information--and the subject is of limited usefulness.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes. Both are licensed under Creative Commons and cited appropriately.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No. The first is too small and should have a legend. The second is too busy and text-heavy.

Talk page discussion
The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There don't seem to be any conversations related to the page content. This is the third time it has been part of a course assignment.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale, and as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, as well as within the scope of WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * In general, it is fairly similar. We have touched on this topic in class, and the way in which social issues contribute to health challenges.

Overall impressions

 * What is the article's overall status?
 * The article does not, on initial review, contain any misleading or inappropriate content. However, there are several missing citations and broken links to be fixed, and large sections of content are taken from other Wikipedia articles, so it is not a particularly high-quality page.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * It appears to be free from major errors. The overall writing is adequate. There are many reliable, trustworthy sources cited. Basic information on the topic is presented.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * Areas for improvement include: improve clarity of writing and overall cohesiveness; add citations where they are missing; fix broken links; restructure article; add current content; find better images to illustrate content.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article could be better developed. Some areas have been focused on more than seems commensurate (health equity in England and Wales; Biden administration improving medical billing transparency) where other, more important areas are lacking in development.

Dr C's comments
Great work on this assessment! It looks like you have identified several areas where improvements can be made to this page, including: editing the lead to contain a description of the article's major sections; (2) Add missing citations; (3) Remove and replace broken links; (4) Reorganize the article; (5) Find better images for the page. We can talk about prioritizing and choosing which of these areas to focus on in class on Thursday, but I think you've got some great material to work with here.