User:Toribless/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?

Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?

I selected this article because I am very interested in healthcare and homelessness. A potential explanation is that homeless people are more likely to develop infections because they frequently use shared facilities like public bathrooms, which have high transmission rates. When people become ill, medical bills can become a huge burden, making access to healthcare even more difficult. This problem is especially important now, considering the recent budget changes to MassHealth, a program that has been critical in delivering healthcare to homeless people without the financial burden of medical bills. After reading the post, my initial opinion was that it was extremely simple and vague—not necessarily owing to the choice of words, but more to how the material was arranged.  It read more like a middle school academic paper, with little depth and clarity in the information.  The content appeared to be broad, which might explain why the article was graded C-class.

Evaluate the article

The article on the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program (BHCHP) is a general overview of the organization but does not go into specifics and is harshly critical.  While the introduction section gives a general overview of BHCHP's mission and services, it does not set up a blueprint for the remainder of the article and does not properly state the significance of the program. While technically correct, the prose is elementary and antiquated, with none of the challenges BHCHP experiences cited, the implications of policy changes, or the larger problem of affordable healthcare for the homeless. The objective tone, while acceptable in an encyclopedia, reads distant, more a summary than a legitimate inquiry. One of the key weaknesses is a lack of diverse viewpoints since the article lacks first-hand statements from patients, health workers, or policymakers which could provide the much-needed richness and complexity. Furthermore, the sources rely on news stories and organizational reports and not peer-reviewed literature or governmental health statistics which gives the information a less official tone. The article structure is straightforward, yet the vocabulary is extremely elementary, failing to attract the reader's attention or provoke further exploration.  The lack of graphics, such as charts or infographics, also impedes the reader's ability to absorb vital concepts.  Coupled with these problems, the talk page is essentially dormant, showing minimal editorial oversight or current updates. Overall, though the essay touches on the basics, it feels thin and contentless.  To be better, it needs newer data, more critical perspectives, richer storytelling, and more solid sources, in order to be engaging and thoughtful instead of merely informative.