User:Sydkay4and/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Nursing ethics

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I am majoring in nursing and also getting a certificate in ethics due to the close knit relationship of the two in order to provide patient-centered care.

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 explains the subject right away with an appropriate answer. However, it does not define the major sections of the article that they go over. The lead is very concise and to the point.

Content- The content briefly goes over the 4 key points of medical ethics which are beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice; however there is no definition or explanation of any of the terms in the article. Additionally, the article does not mention the ANA code of ethics which provides all the provisions of ethics in nursing. Otherwise, every other key point is well explained.

Tone and balance- The article is very neutral and does not contain any leading POV or opinions.

sources- As I mentioned before the ANA code of ethics would have been important to add to this article as well as use it for a reference. Otherwise there are numerous articles and authors that make up this article, allowing the authors of this article to have multiple intakes.

organization- So far, it seems as there are no spelling or grammer issues, and the article is broken into sections respectfully. The article is especially easy to read and navigate.

media-There are no images in the article, however I can't see what they can add to draw into the information of this topic.

talk page discussion- This article is rated a B under Medicine, nursing and philosophy. It only has one conversation in the thread, saying that they don't believe the article can have more to add. Which I disagree I believe they should add in the ANA code of ethics.

Evaluation-


 * 1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

- Everything is relevant to the article respectfully. Nothing distracted me in the article. It would be beneficial to possibly add in nurses opinions but that takes away from the concise part of the article.

2. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

- Everything seems up to date.

3. Can you identify any notable equity gaps? Does the article underrepresent or misrepresent historically marginalized populations?

- There is no miss representation in this article as it is more of a definition of a term then a persuasive article.

Overall, this is a great article that is concise and to the point and explains the true definition of nursing ethics. They just need to insert an area about the ANA code of ethics.