User:Littleskimonkey/sandbox

Article Evaluation A reliable article will encompass multiple viewpoints, have solid references, logically organized, and open with a high-level introduction. Unreliable articles may be lacking citations, have grammatical issues, an incomplete introduction, ambiguous claims, or show a strong preference towards a particular perspective. To enhance articles, as an editor I can suggest that a citation is necessary to support the author's claims. Also, as an author I should cite facts and figures from independent sources that compile various points of view. As for content, Wikipedia classifies paraphrasing copyrighted material as plagiarism. Thus, to avoid being reprimanded for plagiarism, it is recommended that authors take notes from multiple sources and write from those notes instead of directly from the source itself. For the first article "Public Health", it was neutral, relevant, included various subtopics and a plethora of credible references such as the WHO and UN, as well as links to other pages. The introduction was a three paragraph summary of the span of the article, akin to the abstract of a research paper. The article was also well-organized into subsections such as education, history, countries, background, and current practice. However, when covering the topic of smoking, the author vaguely stated "proponents" and "opponents" without giving further clarification of those specific parties, and some additional citations were needed to back up vague claims of how to improve healthcare. It's part of six WikiProjects varying from top to medium importance. For the "Sugar Substitute" article, the introduction was three sentences (opposed to three paragraphs from the previous article). Its references were from credible, independent sources such as the FDA, and also included various global scientific studies. There were a lot of "edit source" links, which suggests that the article needs further validation. The charts are largely incomplete. The Cancer subsection is surprisingly anemic but links to a lengthier Hazard ratio article. It's part of the WikiProject Food and Drink (high importance) and Medicine (low importance), received a grade of B-C, and was demoted from "good article" standing. The "Vietnamese Tuberculosis" article is a stub. This article is two sentences and has three links and no references. It's also classified as low-importance.

I chose to review the article "Preventative Medicine." Level 4 importance, C-class Wikiprojects: medicine, health and fitness, politics, education

Under Primal Prevention subheading, I thought covering financial assistance and parental leave (without specifying maternal leave) was unnecessary. Otherwise, I found everything relevant and useful regarding preventative medicine.

Bias: the author states that our healthcare system deals with disease too late, but fails to provide statistics or a credible source that backs this assertion.

Underrepresented: preventative healthcare for mothers and embryos. This article has a section of “Primal Prevention” but mainly discusses parental leave while neglecting genetic testing. Also neglects the importance of STI testing. Additionally, there's no representation of the social aspect of preventative medicine, such as public health campaigns.

Overrepresented: American-centric view of healthcare because it centers on obesity and a healthy diet.

Vague: In the United States, the author asserts that the elderly has less access to quality healthcare than younger patients, but fails to quantify what specific treatments or care are inferior for older people.

Each paragraph has at least 3-4 citations, and they support the claims in the article.

The author uses a study that states "400,000 people die each year in the United States due to poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle," which is sourced from a journal. From training it was stated that we should avoid sourcing from individual journals, and opt for meta-analyses. Most are from WHO statements, which is good because it's from a neutral third party.

There are figures from 2003 about childhood mortality factors, which needs to be updated. Also, under "Economics of Healthcare" the whole section doesn’t include a single statistic.

Controversial: Abortion should be in the list of preventative deaths, the numbers are astonishing for the United States of America alone.

This article is more heavily focused on obesity that other factors such as screening, environmental factors, etc.