User:Zweathersby/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Health education

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it is a subfield for the graduate program I was admitted into. For this reason, it piqued my interest. It is also a very important topic and contains knowledge that can help everyone. My preliminary thoughts were that it would not be great because it had a warning label which was a red flag in training, I also expected it to give in depth details about what exactly health education is.

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.)

Overall, I do not believe that the article gave much relevant information on the topic of health education. The information provided was mainly about school teachings, which was brief, and those related to health education. It failed to go in depth about this topic, its importance, and what it relates to. For this reason, I believe the article needs to be updated to include be more helpful and informative. The lead section did however contain a table of contents and showed everything that would be discussed in the article. Throughout, the article did not manage to stay neutral and balanced. It seemed to be written by those already in health fields. The article's lack of relevant information makes it hard to determine if some things were over or underrepresented. There are reliable sources from a wide variety of authors for the bit of information provided. Most of them are from the early 2000's, so more recent ones need to be included. I believe that these will be better (WHY?) and overall improve the article. The article does not contain the best writing, and also contains a few grammatical errors. In some places a lot of information was thrown into one sentence when it could have easily been broken down. The article was very short in length and contained only one visual. This visual would have been very helpful if the thing it showed was discussed. On the talk page, people are basically saying what I've stated. The article is poorly rated and the listing indicates it needs work. It differs from what I have learned because it is supposed to provide meaningful information like that of an encyclopedia which it failed to do. It is a part of wikiprojects education.

The article can be improved a lot. It is very undeveloped. It does not get the job done when it comes to providing information. I can not pinpoint many strengths of this article and that can be an improvement in itself. I think more relevant and neutral information can be added.