User:Ahaq23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Endometrial ablation

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I remember seeing this procedure done multiple times on my Ob/gyn rotation, and know that it is quite common. The first thing that stood out to me when I entered the page was a blurry photo from the surgical camera that provides no context/means nothing to someone who hasn't done the procedure before. It struck me as an article that could be rewritten for better.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: Although the first sentence adequately explains the topic, the second sentence feels irrelevant and out of scope for the introduction. The second paragraph has strange word choice ("employed", "unsuccessful medical therapy") and leaves out details that would be helpful if expanded on (for example, what kinds of medical therapy are typically failed before leading up to this procedure?).

Content: The article says nothing about the procedure itself. Although it goes into a lot of detail about different brands of ablation systems and descriptions of them, the article does not give a general description of what ablation entails.

Tone and balance: Sterilization has its own section instead of being housed in the risks/complications section. It was also mentioned in the second sentence of this article, rather abruptly and inappropriately. I think this emphasis on sterilization feels unbalanced and does not read like a professional medical article.

Sources and references: Many placed with missing sources (e.g. risks and complications section, the last paragraph in the "treatment options" section). In addition, this whole article only has 9 sources total.

Organization and writing quality: Much of this article's content feels out of scope, and relies on choppy and abrupt organization without transitions. The article has some strange word choice ("employed", "unsuccessful medical therapy") and leaves out details that would be helpful if expanded on. In addition, I think the section headings are sometimes too broad and sometimes too detailed-- even editing just this would make the article flow much better.

Images and media: The only image/media in this entire article is a blurry photo from the surgical camera that provides no context/means nothing to someone who hasn't done the procedure before.

Talk page discussion: The talk page pretty much mirrors my thoughts; the last feedback was written in 2016 and the article hasn't been touched since.

Overall impression: I think this article is highly relevant and needed for many patients, and is in pretty severe need of editing given that it hasn't even been talked about since 2016. I would add a general section about the procedure, rewrite the risk/benefits/sterility sections to make it more fair and balanced, add quality images, and change around organization to have indications/diseases treated as its own section.