User:Aellengray/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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_physiology?action=edit
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I have always been interested in the topic of physiology and want to learn more about it in the clinical role.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It does have some good detail but that would be expected for a science field.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes. There are edits from 2019 and 2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? It is a relatively short article so there may be more information of the field. Everything belongs.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No, it is missing some citations.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There could be more information from different regions
 * Are the sources current? There are some more relevant and 1 that is from 2009.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? No
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? There is a lack of citation use for the history of the topic. There is also confusion as to why such few countries are being addressed in this topic rather than many if not all of them.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Yes, it was a student education supported class assignment
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A