User:Tamw8/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (link) Tactical Combat Casualty Care
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. This is some thing that I am highly interested in and is an area of healthcare that not many individuals outside of military or law enforcement professions know about.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes but they only discuss the topic as it pertains to the US military.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Barely mentions the procedural aspects and major phases of practicing TCCC.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Lead mentions history of TCCC briefly but the main body does not include this information as it only describes the history of the CoTCCC.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead contains a brief history of the development of TCCC overall. This would've been better suited for the body of the article.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
Is the content up-to-date? More than half of the source are more than 5+ years old.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The history of TCCC, more about TCCC procedures, and TCCC as practiced by non US-military agencies.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Is the article neutral? Yes.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Yes. The article largely covers American military practices. It does not provide much information from the viewpoint of other agencies or practitioners.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Many are primary sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not all sources are thorough. They provide good starting points though.
Are the sources current? More than half are not current.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No, mostly written by US military sources and affiliated organizations. No, they did not specifically include sources written exclusively by historically marginalized individuals (also not particularly relevant to this topic).
Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes. Phrasing is awkward at times especially near the end of the article.
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. However, it may be beneficial to add several more sections to adequately cover the topic.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? None.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Not rated. No.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A, was not discussed in class.

What is the article's overall status? Start or C-class
What are the article's strengths? Provides a good foundation on various aspects of topic that can be built upon.
How can the article be improved? Many more topics could be expanded upon, Especially in regards to history, phases of care (and relevant interventions/ guidelines), and TCCC as practiced by non-US military organizations. Requires more recent reliable secondary sources.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped.

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 — ~~~~