User:Aat0405!/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: Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I have an interest in physiology therefore I wanted to learn more about clinical physiology and the basics of the discipline.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The introductory sentence very clearly states and describes the article topic which is Clinical Psysiology.

The lead includes sections such as the role of clinical physiology, its history and the appropriate references included within the article.

The lead includes medical terms that are measured in clinical physiology. These are included in the introduction however it is not further explained or expanded in the further topics.

The lead is short and simple to follow and understand.


 * 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?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes the articles content is relevant to the topic.

Based on the last update, the page was updated on Oct 30, 2020

The content has information and links to other topics if further research is needed.

No the article does not deal with underrepresented populations or topics.


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral.

No biased information is shared

No sign of over or underrepresentation

No the article does not influence readers to favour one position


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Yes the sources are reliable

Yes they are thorough

The sources are not current

The sources are not diverse

The links work


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is concise, clear and easy to read

No grammar errors

There are sections and major topics to help guide the readers


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

There are no images in the article to help enhance understanding


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page discussed the validity of clinical physiology and its establishment in Sweden


 * 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

 * Guiding questions

The articles strength is its layout.

The article can improve its validity


 * 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?

Optional activity

 * 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: Talk:Clinical physiology