User:MTucker30/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 am interested in the health field so I found this article more interesting than the others.

Evaluate the article

Health Communication arose during the early 1900's during the same time the public health field was starting to take shape. It quickly became a much needed field of study as the need to communicate important information from the government and other organizations to larger populations/areas dramatically increased. The Health Communication examines how different communication strategies can be implemented to help encourage people to live a healthier lifestyle as well as improve health literacy among populations. There are four main outlets of health communication that include, promotional health information, interactions between the caregiver and the patient, public events concerning health topics and general education to the public. Overall, the main objective of health communication is to provide health education to those who do not have access to health knowledge and to benefit people's lives in a positive way. The importance of this is that by communicating about the importance of health and different health related events, people can be inspired to live a healthier life and an increased level of longevity. To enter the Health Communication profession, a bachelor's degree in health communication is a necessity and should also possess some important qualities such as, perceptive and empathic listening, legible penmanship, proper communication education, as well as being able to communicate clearly. Health communication professionals address a wide range of communication topics across the health care system relating to patient-provider discussions, community/family communication, health care education, and public health campaigns. The channels for conveying important messages has significantly improved from the start of the 1900's, making it more proficient for health communication professionals to broadcast public health information. One of the most effective ways to communicate such information is through mass media, primarily through Television and the internet. Now that the access of information is more abundant than ever, it is even easier to promote health education to the public as well as improve their health literacy. Another advantage of this is that Health Communication has become more essential in notifying the public about disastrous situations such as, floods, earthquakes, large scale fires and more. The spread of health communication has the potential to save lives and provides an advantage to those who live in geological areas prone to natural disasters. Moreover, health communication is also used to convey important information about new health care policies and even new up-comings on disease prevention. This being said, there are often some challenges in Health Communication, the biggest issue being the widening gap of health care illiteracy. While Health Communication seeks to provide proper health education and literacy, ill-messages and false information are still very prevalent in today's society. Because of this false information people can be persuaded into believing in such false knowledge which in turn can decrease the public's understanding on health.

References[edit]

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2010. Volumes 1 and 2, Chapt. 11, p 11–20. https://web.archive.org/web/20100122053253/http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/HTML/Volume1/11HealthCom.htl
Wikipedia: Heath Communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_communication.