User:Cdh036/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

Complete your article evaluation below. Here are the key aspects to consider:

Lead section

A good lead section defines the topic and provides a concise overview. A reader who just wants to identify the topic can read the first sentence. A reader who wants a very brief overview of the most important things about it can read the first paragraph. A reader who wants a quick overview can read the whole lead section.

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? (It shouldn't.)
Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

A good Wikipedia article should cover all the important aspects of a topic, without putting too much weight on one part while neglecting another.

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view; if there are substantial differences of interpretation or controversies among published, reliable sources, those views should be described as fairly as possible.

Is the article neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such?
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

A Wikipedia article should be based on the best sources available for the topic at hand. When possible, this means academic and peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books.

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?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization and writing quality

The writing should be clear and professional, the content should be organized sensibly into sections.

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?

Images and Media

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?

Talk page discussion

The article's talk page — and any discussions among other Wikipedia editors that have been taking place there — can be a useful window into the state of an article, and might help you focus on important aspects that you didn't think of.

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?

Overall impressions

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Which article are you evaluating?

Health communication

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I chose healthcare communication because that is the field that I currently work in. I find the communication between healthcare provider and patient intriguing. Specifically this includes the creation of content used to help bridge that gap between the two. Effective healthcare communication across cultures is essential to better quality of life outcomes.

Evaluate the article

Wikipedia Article Evaluation: Health Communication

Content

I noticed a few distractions like mentions of alcohol and tobacco marketing. It strayed away from the message and had odd placement in the article.
Another distraction was in the design of the article, specifically, where the author chose to place information throughout. An example of that was choosing to place information about health communication and social platforms under overview. That may have been better represented under the mass media category.
While reading I thought the author would touch on HIPAA as that is an essential part of healthcare communication but it was never mentioned.
The article provided in depth information about diversity and communicating across cultures but did not touch on the different languages that may be present in the same geographical location. That’s imperative especially in the case of emergency health concerns confined to a regional area.
The only other improvement suggestion would be being mindful of redundancies. I noticed several times the same information was repeated, even if it was to make a different point.

Tones

The tone of this article read more like taking a course on health communication rather than getting to know what health communication is.
Challenges in health communication could have been more in depth and made the article read more neutral.
Literacy-communication gap was well represented and presented non-bias.
The development and improvement of health communication has been extensive over the years. The author represented this well but may have been able to narrow down the timeline to the most pivotal events in the field.

Sources

There are issues with sources such as links to the websites not working. I found at least three.
It looks like the information did come from scholarly projects and does not seem to be biased in nature.
I did find that the facts were referenced appropriately.

Talk Page

Start Class rated Article
Page was created as an educational wikiproject. It falls under the scope of Wikiproject Medicine and Wikiproject Media.
Not much information provided from discussions like I have seen for other articles.