User:Aeley320/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Blighted ovum

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen to evaluate this article because I am interested in editing it. On first glance, the article appears short given the importance of the topic. This gave me the impression that it may be a good article to evaluate and edit.

Evaluate the article
The first sentence of the lead section is strong. It provides the essential definition of the topic. The first paragraph, which serves as the lead section is very brief, only 3 sentences. The 2nd sentence does not clearly connect to the article topic and needs further context. The 3rd sentence of the lead is strong, and conveys important information, but this information is not well established in the main content. This lead section is concise, but could benefit from revision.

The main content, which is the 2nd paragraph of the article is fairly well written. The content of all but the last sentence is highly relevant, and concise. The final sentence of the paragraph is loosely related to the topic, as it explains diagnosis of early miscarriage in which the embryo does form. However, this information has no clear relevance to the article, as blighted ova never form an embryo.

The sources listed are from reliable sources, but many were retrieved over 10 years ago, and none are more recently retrieved than September 2017 (~6 and 1/2 years ago). More recent information could now be available that may improve the article.

The article is well written, but due to its short length (2 paragraphs), there are no sections and a very simple structure.

There is an image associated with this article that is a very effective visualization of a blighted ovum. The image has a caption which thoroughly describes the image and its components.

The talk page has a few discussions of how to improve the article by simplifying technical jargon, or moving it out of the lead section. Based on the current state of the article, it seems that these suggested changes have been made.

This article has a few weak sentences that should be edited. The article is also quite short. Much of what exists is strong, but some should be edited, and more should be added. More recent sources should be explored for potentially relevant information, as this article has not had new sources added in the past 6 years.