User:Aamna11/Evaluate an Article
Evaluate an article
[edit]This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.
- Name of Article: (Social Determinants of Health in Poverty)
- Why have you chosen to evaluate this article? I have chosen to evaluate this article because it has a close connection to the work that my PE organization does and provides insight into the background of the policy that shapes my organization's work.
Lead
[edit]Lead evaluation
[edit]The Lead is introduced in a way that properly explains what social determinants are, how they are related to an individual's health, and how they disproportionately affect the impoverished. Since this article is fairly long and detailed, the Lead is also delves into the contexts in which social determinants of health are discussed, which include gender, age, and education, among others; consequently, these are some of the subheadings of the major sections of the article. The Lead does not explore any issues that aren't discussed in the rest of the article and is well detailed considering the length of the article, without being superfluous.
Content
[edit]Content evaluation
[edit]The article's content is very relevant to the topic, it makes sure to address several social factors that have an effect on health, and it has up to date information on several aspects of the topics it addresses. It actually even has a section that talks about my specific PE organization, which may have been completed by a previous GPP student. I do believe that there is not much content missing or anything that does not belong, but I think there can be different subheadings to organize the article further. For example, I think the section about my PE org can be expanded under a heading related to screening for social determinants of health.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The article is neutral and does not assume any opinions in its text; some viewpoints seemed to be underrepresented (like SDH affecting men as opposed to women), but it might be due to lack of research in that area, and a large database of research in the other area. The article does not favor any position over another, rather it gives many examples and explanations of several social and economic factors in a person's life, and what observed effects they have on that person's health.
Sources and References
[edit]Sources and references evaluation
[edit]Almost all of the sentences in the article have a citation which I was able to look back to to confirm the information in the text. The sources are fairly recent, and are generally from within the last twenty years; every source is related to the article and its subheadings in a clear way. Some sources are more specific than others, but are able to expand on a certain part of the article which bolsters the information on social determinants of health in relation to poverty. For example, sources related to women's health helped fill in the Gender section of the article. The links to the sources work, and I was also able to add in my own source to back up a certain fact in the text.
Organization
[edit]Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is well written, albeit a little disorganized. I felt as if there was a need for more subheadings to develop and let the information flow more properly -- some information could be sectioned differently, especially the information about my PE organization (the subheading could be 'Screening for Social Determinants of Health in Underrepresented Populations', or something along the lines of that). Even though there are already numerous sections and subheadings to the article, I feel as if they can be expanded and consolidated to avoid confusion between ideas.
Images and Media
[edit]Images and media evaluation
[edit]There are two images of data in this article, one is very specific to a certain area (health disparities in England and Wales), but it is clear and has a proper caption. The other one is less developed without a caption, and is less appealing to look at and analyze, even though it provides a bit more encompassing data in relation to age and ethnicity. I believe they both adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations. However, there can be more appealing images to interest the reader and explain the material better, especially if they were more descriptive of the general idea of the article.
Checking the talk page
[edit]Talk page evaluation
[edit]The talk page is very enlightening, especially because there was a former GPP student who worked on it, as well as other students from other institutions. There is more discourse on proper placement of certain words and how to consolidate information rather than actual talk on SDH. To WikiProject medicine, it is rated of mid importance (B-class) -- in Wikipedia it is discussed with more emphasis on the structure and placement of the article, than as an academic assessment of the subject matter.
Overall impressions
[edit]Overall evaluation
[edit]The article's overall status is very good! Its strengths include having a very encompassing view of the several factors that contribute to SDH in poverty, and I believe its weaknesses include improper structuring of the large amount of information. It can be improved with more eye to the organization of the piece. Furthermore, I would say that the article is in a good state, but has room for improvement.
Optional activity
[edit]- Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback
with four tildes — ~~~~
- Link to feedback: