User:Thomas Simbo K./Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?

 * 1) “Healthcare in Senegal”
 * 2) “Telehealth”

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

 * 1) I was looking for an article talking about pulmonary illness in Sub-Saharan Africa or developing countries but couldn't find an article. Healthcare in Senegal is the closest to what I am working on and I can add more information on lung diseases and health in rural areas in Senegal. I think it is a good page in general and has some details, adding details to it will be good.
 * 2) Telehealth is linked to self-management in medicine and self-management techniques are a big part of my my Katz memo and NTH. The article has a sub section talking about developing countries so talking about Telemedicine in Senegal and its limitation with scholarly articles providing examples can be valuable. (There is also a part talking about the SAHEL project in Senegal and Kenya which was an "18 month initiative aims to support the extension of sustainable eHealth services in Africa through the integrated use of satellite based technologies and other forms of information and communication technologies." (https://business.esa.int/news/satellite-african-ehealth-validation-project)

Evaluate the article

 * 1) The lead is concise and well detailed. However, it does not include a brief description of the major sections and some facts do not have citations. The content of the article is relevant to the topic and covers some (but of course not all) of the health care in Senegal. It focuses a lot of women's health which is an important health topic in West Africa. It does also addresses the issue of medically underserved areas in Senegal in couple paragraphs. The content is up to date as most sources have been published less that 10 years ago. The point of view is neutral and no particular bias claims stood out to me. The article is trying to inform the readers on healthcare in Senegal rather than persuade them. Some facts do not have sources. Most sources however are scholarly articles, reflect the topic, are written by a broad range of authors and were live (I checked the first 5 sources). Something to note is that some sources were used multiple times in the article (I am not sure if this is good or bad). This article is not  excessively long and not hard to read, I did not find grammatical errors. Some sections have a lot of sub-sections, such as section 4 with 6 subsections. Maybe having an extra section focusing on women's health can be beneficial because it takes a big chunk of section 4 and makes it a bit hard to keep track (goes from facilities in urban/rural areas to maternal mortality and women's health). Images are relevant to the subject, well used and well captioned (except the one showing the map of Senegal, on which I couldn't find the caption). They help having visual images to give us an idea of what we are reading.  The talk page tells us that the article was nominated as a "Social Science and society good article but did not meet the good article criteria" in 2013. On the talk page, multiple Wikipedians were talking about how the article can be improved by proofreading, adding more sources/statistics and more details on the topic (some sub-sections are much less detailed than others). The author however replied by saying that finding specific sources was challenging. Someone also proposed having a sub-section for women's health which is what I also think would improve the article, and another person gave comments and his/her opinion on each subsections.. The article failed to be reviewed as a GA in June 2013 because the author was not active anymore.  Overall I think the article is relatively good but requires more sources, data and structure. It is hard to cover everything healthcare related in a country but it looks like a good point to start. The point of view is neutral and the strength of the article is its section on women's health and data provided. More research and article needs to be published as well as more historical details. To make the article more complete, one could restructure part of it, and add sources. There is a French Wikipedia article called "Sante Au Senegal" which is different than this one so maybe merging both and having them in both languages can be advantageous since Senegal is a French speaking country.
 * 2) The telehealth article is a very dense and long article. The lead section gives the definition of telehealth and does describe the topic. It does not provide a description of the major sections but rather gives multiple example of what telehealth is and in which situation it is done, making the intro a bit overly detailed. As said earlier, the content is dense and there are a lot of sub-sections (section 3 has 21 subsections each about a category of telehealth). Some subcategories are shorter than other, which could be because some areas of telehealth are much more used while others are relatively new/less used by patients. The content is up to date. I tried searching for the word COVID because online consultations have increased since the pandemic and the word is present 34 times. There is even a sub subsection on it which makes it up to date, plus, some articles are from 2022. The tone is neutral (having a "bigger" article probably helps having with having a neutral point of view), and it did not seem to me like authors were trying to persuade us in favor of one position. This article has more than 200 cited sources from a broad range of authors. Most sources are from the last 10 years and some few articles are older than 20 years old. This make sense because telemedicine is a new topic that arose at the same time of internet and computers. The first 5 links worked well. The article was not as easy to read. It discusses a lot on medicine and politics which are both heavy and not easy topics to read. I think it is concise but the topics are just not easy to write on/read. I did not find grammatical errors. I think the article is overall well organized except the fact that the History section is section 11 and having it at the very beginning rather than at the end will give readers an overview of how Telemedicine evolved in becoming what it is today. The article has a good amount of pictures at the beginning but the more we go through it, the dryer it becomes and the harder it is to follow. Having more images in the second half of the article can be good. Some pictures do not have dates and citations are not always detailed.  The first thing that was interesting to note on the talk page was that the contents of the Telemedicine page were merged into this one in 2019. There were some debates on the differences and similarities between telehealth and telemedicine and wikipedians were discussing this contradiction, as well as trying to de-conflict it. Further debates also discuss on merging the article with the eHealth one but this was not done and the discussion got closed. The other closed discussion was the one leading to the merging of telemedicine with telehealth. The final talk section is on COVID-19 which makes the article even more up to date. Overall I think this article is solid and has a lot of details, even if some sections are more dense than others. Having the history part at the beginning and more pictures would make the article more appealing to read and better overall. The merging of telemedicine with telehealth also made it a better one and it is a good example of why merging 2 articles can be beneficial. It is also interesting to see that one of the merging was refused which is important because the community has to make sure that it will beneficiate both articles if the merging is done.