User:Slran/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Preventive healthcare

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is an important, growing topic in healthcare and should be careful examined and shared with readers. My preliminary impression of it is that this topic has been pretty thoroughly covered. The article is pretty long and addresses many aspects of the topic such as health disparities, case studies/specific examples, and economic concerns.

Lead section
There is a clear sentence that tells the reader what preventative healthcare means. The lead includes a relatively strong summary of the major sections, giving emphasis to specific examples and lifestyle factors. However, I think it could include a bit more about the cost-effectiveness and accessibility aspect of preventative healthcare. There were a couple sections dedicated to this topic, but the lead only addresses this in the last sentence. No, the lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article. The lead is a bit long and possibly goes into a bit too much detail. Perhaps too many specific examples were given.

Content
The articles content was relevant to the topic. It also appears up to date with the last edit being made on January 18th, 2022. From what I read, the content thoroughly covers the subject, but may need more discussion on the economic debate portion of the article. The article states that the cost-effectiveness is a highly debated topic and offers a bit more in-depth discussion. However, I think that more could be covered on different perspectives relating to this issue. Yes, the article does address topics related to historically underrepresented populations. Although there is a section addressing the accessibility disparities between minority groups, I think there could be more of an emphasis on this topic since cost plays such a huge role here.

Tone and Balance
The article reads as neutral and doesn't appear to have heavy biases towards one position or another. I do think more positions should be offered in the cost discussion, but I don't think there are biases.

Sources and References
Most facts in this article are supported by sources, but I did find some sentences throughout the article without citations (where there maybe should have been). There are over 100 sources, and many of them were from within the past 7 years. There were at least 10 within the past 2 years. Perhaps more recent sources should be included as well, since there weren't any sources from 2022. The few links I tested worked.

Organization and writing quality
The article is mostly well-organized. The authors do talk quite a bit about economic implications and list it under effectiveness. I think this topic deserves its own section and perhaps should be combined. There are subsections under "Effectiveness" titled "Cost-effectiveness of childhood obesity interventions," "Economics of U.S. preventive care," "Economics for investment," and "Economic case," which I think should be listed under a whole new section titled "Economics." There are also further subsections under "Economic case" which makes the organization a bit confusing and apparent that different authors wrote these different sections.

Images and Media
There were a few images that were included, but the text to image ratio is incredibly skewed towards text, especially in the latter part of the article. It makes the article a bit difficult to digest towards the end. The images were well captioned, but I'm not so sure that the images of the cancer diagnosis were necessary. And if they were, one would've been enough in my opinion. The first image could also be laid out in a more appealing way. The way the table of contents/image are laid out leaves a bit white gap between the lead and the sections.

Talk page discussion
The article is rated as C-Class. It is a part of WikiProject Medicine (C-class, high importance), WikiProject Health and fitness (C-class, high importance), WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class), and WikiProject Education (Rated Start-class). In general, there seems to be debates on the Talk page about whether or not a somewhat controversial topic should be included. Some examples include "obscene soviet breasts," "abortion," "suicide," etc..

Overall impressions
I think this article has been thoroughly edited and is pretty well written. The strengths definitely can be found in the sheer amount of information and examples. The topic is also addressed from many perspectives--social, economic, biological, etc.. I think the article could emphasize the disparities more, especially in the large economic section. I also think the lead could be a bit more concise. Overall, I find the article well developed.