User:Scmccray18/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article (First Aid)
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (link)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead includes a good introductory sentence that gives a short but effective definition of first aid. The lead doesn't go into detail about what you will find in the article, it mostly talks about the different types of first aid, which can be foreshadowing to the contents of the article. The lead includes some of the information that is in the article. The lead is overly detailed, they got info specifics, and at that they didn't explain the specifics nicely.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The content is relative to the topic and is up-to-date as it it only about what is first aid and doesn't list any procedures. Content that is missing I would say would be what first aid actions can non-medical personnel do to help save someone's life. For example the basics of how to stop a bleed, what to do if someone goes into cardiac arrest, and so forth, but that is what I think of when I hear first aid and what I expected to find in this article but didn't. I would also keep the first 2-3 lines in the lead but then completely replace the lead with the topic titled "Aims" I believe that would make a good lead.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

There is not an agenda that is being pushed, the only two things that I thought could be bias was when they were talking about types of emergency workers, they listed a specific EMS agency rather than saying EMS, or ambulance services and when they were describing what a first aid kit was, and not all of them look the way that they stated it would. I also felt as if the people that are looking up first aid probably don't have a medical background and some of the language was really advanced. I know most of it as I work in EMS, but people with no training wouldn't, sometimes they would define/explain what terminology, but others they wouldn't, especially the medical mnemonics and acronyms.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The cited sources do work as they take you to additional information. However, I did notice that there was a significant amount of in text hyperlinks that were linked to other wiki pages, I think this is a good idea for explaining what to do in certain medical emergencies because that would be a lot of information on one article, but they used it for a lot more than that and it gave off the impression that they didn't feel like doing research or their own work so they just hyperlinked other's to give access to the info that they were suppose to provide. It also seems like there might be a few lines that are direct quotations or paraphrasing as there was some terminology that was really advanced and others that are not, but that would also me the fact that many others have edited this. Most sources are in date, but there are a few from the early 2000s.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The overall question of is this article organized nicely is no. Like I stated with the Aim and the lead, there are other topics that I would move around, delete, and add. To me, the history tab is too short and jumpy, they attempted to talk about how first aid has been present through history, it doesn't explain any one topic well. Also, I noticed punctuation errors, formatting errors, and sometimes some of the sentences just didn't make sense. For me, people are looking up first aid because they are uneducated and/or experiencing an event where they would need it. With that said, I would organize it so that the lead would describe what first aid is and what it isn't, how medical professionals are involved and that there are things that regular people can do as well. Then I would go over some history, but not a lot because the medical field is always changing, then go into different types of emergencies and give a brief very simple explanation of what can be done (even if it is just call 911) and maybe hyperlink another wiki article or source that can provide more information. After that talk about personal (nonprofessional) first aid kits and describe their contents. I would then talk about job/careers/opportunities that people who are considered medical professionals and discuss their training. And finally the symbols and images associated with first aid/emergency medicine.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The there are images on this page; however, I do not agree with the placement and the choices. They used the following content: a man recieving first aid, a historical piece of art, an open vs. closed airway, a first aid serenio, a CPR dummy, an event in which first aid stuff is working, and many symbols. To me the pictures they chose doesn't make sense. I would add pictures of actual emergencies that needed first aid for recognition and step-by-step images of things like how to stop a bleed, perform CPR, or anything of that nature. I do think the symbols are a nice touch.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page is listing the article as c class, but with high importance. The article is apart of the Wikiproject First Aid, but it is inactive. It seems that some usered have used the talk page as a sandbox. The comments on particular paragraphs/sentences are very simple and vage. There is one person that actually left a good, in detail comment. This person states that they are in medical school and working on this article as a group for a class assignment, they make a lot of critiques, a lot of which I have already stated. There's no conversation in the talk page that has occured since mid 2019.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

I think this article is very poorly written and developed and doesn't provide that much substantial information. In addition the useful information is hidden in the "junk" that doesn't need to be in this article. It's full of random information and doesn't flow. To make it better, it would need to be completely restructured and a significant amount of information would need to be added and taken from this article. I think that it was nice that they talked about mental health and first aid, but they made it seem as if PTSD is the only thing that applies to this but it's not the case at all, which I guess could be considered a bias as well.


 * 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?

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: