User:Smg02/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Healthcare in the United States

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it is relevant to my PE organization's area. It provides a good background for the system that my PE org is functioning within. Healthcare can be complex in the United States so getting a deeper understanding of its functionality and issues within the setup.

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 Section

The lead section is too long for the length of the article. It doesn't describe the material very concisely in the fist sentence or even first paragraph. There is an abundance of detailed information included that could be brought into more specific content sections in the article.

Content

There is a broad range of information included within the content section of this article. Based on my reading, I think that it covers many important and relevant subsections having to do with the main topic. Additionally, there seems to be a good amount of updated information, with some sources being cited from 2020.

I do think that many of the sections include a lot of information while the History section seems to be neglected, with only one paragraph of information provided. History of healthcare in the United States is a very complex issue and could use some attention.

Tone and Balance

Given that the article is mostly stating facts and statistics about the setup of the healthcare system in the United States, it is easily able to maintain neutrality. The only subsection that could be of concern is the Healthcare Reform section. Even so, this subsection seems to maintain neutrality by citing its claims from specific studies and reports. I also think both opinions on healthcare reform are well represented as acts passed by both political parties are analyzed with their direct impacts. There doesn't seem to be any persuasion, rather a relaying of information and facts.

Sources and References

Although there are plenty of citations and sources used by this article, I did catch the occasional statistic not being cited at the end of a sentence. This could be because it is grouped in with the citation at the end of the next sentence, but I am not sure if that is allowed. There are 282 sources cited in the References page, showing a wide variety of sources (both current and past).

Most of the links I clicked on were the correct and appropriate link with relevant knowledge, but there was one link that just brought me to the Washington Post homepage. This could be because Washington Post requires a subscription, but I am not sure

Images and Media

There are a variety of images throughout the article that can contribute to readers understanding of the topic. Both properly-captioned graphs and actual images are included to provide data and examples of healthcare in the US.

Talk Page Discussion

There don't seem to be any major discussions happening on the talk page.

The article is a part of 5 C-Class WikiProjects.

Overall Impressions

The article is definitely well-developed. There is a wide inclusion of sources and properly-cited ideas related to the topic as a whole. However, to update the article and make it more effective I think there can be some adjustments to the formatting (especially the Lead Section) in order to properly summarize and convey the goal of the article for readers.

Which article are you evaluating?
Community health

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article because it is relevant to my PE organization's sector. It provides a broad scope of information needed for the type of assistive work my PE provides. Community health is the main issue that my PE org is targeting so learning more about its impacts will be helpful for a proper understanding of the work it does.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

The lead section of this article provides a definition of the main topic while also succinctly including information that will be further explored throughout the rest of the article. I would say it is fairly concise and does not dive too deep into the material that is going to be further explained in the actual content sections.

Content

The content provided in this article is relevant as it helps define and elaborate upon the main facets of community health. It describes the approaches to community health as well as those who provide community health care. Although there is no direct indication as to when these definitions were last agreed upon, the information seems to be up-to-date and accurate for the community health system today.

Tone and Balance

The article does appear to be neutral. Again, as it is describing the general facets of the topic and not necessarily any controversial ideas about the topic, there isn't too much of an opportunity to be considered not neutral. In circumstances where information could vary from community to community, it acknowledges these differences and states how some standard may be different depending on the location.

Sources and References

There seems to be a lack of citations after sentences that clearly are in need of one. For example, definitions or factual descriptions of aspects of community health should be properly cited so that readers can be certain what they are reading is true. This article does have less sources than the previously evaluated article, measuring only up to 33 sources. The sources that are included also seem to be reliable and up-to-date, with some sources even being relatively recent (2019).

Images and Media

There aren't any photos included in this article. There could probably be a few images included showing the difference between the different categories of community health care or the types of outreach the workers complete, but it would have to be within Wikipedia restrictions (which I am not fully knowledgeable about).

There is however the inclusion of a table that neatly organizes some of the information described into an easily comprehensible segment. I appreciate the inclusion of a table since it allows readers to get a more simplified version of the material presented.

Talk Page Discussion

There aren't any recent posting to the Talk page.

This article is a rated as a Start-Class article. It is a part of 2 WikiProjects, but is ranked as low-importance for these projects.

Overall Impressions

Overall I think that this article has a well-developed description of community health. After reading this article, a reader would have a solid understanding of the topic. It does well in providing definitions and providing more in-depth material about the topic.

However, this article could probably be improved by creating more citations or including more up-to-date ideas about community health.