User:Tuphoff1/Evaluate an Article

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


 * Epic Systems: (Epic Systems)
 * I have chosen this article to evaluate because I have heard much about Epic Systems through my father's work and its connection to Johns Hopkins Medicine, so I was curious whether or not fellow Wikipedians had provided a detailed and accurate article for Epic Systems.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The Lead for the Epic System's wikipedia page includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the function of Epic Systems as well as provides a brief description of the articles major sections (i.e. History, product and market, concerns, etc.). Moreover, the Lead ensures that it does not include information that is not present in the article or information that is overly detailed; rather, the Lead is very concise.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The Article's content is generally relevant to the topic, except for the sections titled "U.K. experience" and "Danish experience." It seems as if the information in these sections are forced into the article and are not as essential as some material left out of the article. With that said, while much of the content is up to date, there is some content that is missing. For instance, Epic System primarily provides its services within the United States, thus it is unclear to me why there is not a specific section for "American experience."

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the article appears to be neutral and contains many reputable sources, especially in the section discussing Data Sharing Concerns which could lend itself to a bias quite easily. With that said, however, it seems as if the history and product/market sections are underrepresented relative to the data concerns sections. However, that does not mean that the data concerns section should be reduced; instead both sections need more detail to paint a further, unbiased picture of Epic Systems.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Although all of the facts in the article appear to be thoroughly backed up by a reliable secondary source of information, the sources certainly can be updated. For example, the UK experience section seems to rely primarily data obtained in 2015 or earlier with the exception of one report from February 2016. Moreover, upon testing a few links, there are several articles written in foreign languages such as Norwegian which may be a concern to the many Americans reading this page.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Organizationally speaking, the article seems to be very well written in the sense that is is clear, concise, and easy to read while displaying no blatant grammatical or spelling errors. However, as hinted at before, the article could be broken down into sections that better reflect the major points of the topic. For instance, some extra sections that could be added would be software, community, sharing, and services.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
The article only includes one image which depicts the company's logo in front of its headquarters in Verona, Wisconsin. While this photo alone was well captioned, adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulation, and is laid out in a visually appealing way, one photo is not enough. There is much work to be done in terms of images and media.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
The talk page has not been edited since August 27, 2018. With that said, there is a large chance many topics pertaining to Epic Systems are not up to date. However, the talk page did mention adding a section named "Class Action Lawsuit" to describe the company being subject to a number of class action settlements, both active and settled. This would be a great opportunity to update the Wikipedia page as a complement to the Data Sharing section. However, unlike the way we have talked about discussions in class, there is not much back and forth discussion about the Epic Systems page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
In my opinion, this article is very well written, but misses many critical components of Epic Systems and lacks any discussion about current material. With that said, the strengths of this article include it's ability to clearly and concisely present information that is well researched and documented. Yet, the article would be improved by adding to the history and product sections as well as by adding information about Class Action Lawsuits. Thus, the article is well-written, but underdeveloped.

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: