User:Asanc445/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.
 * The reason why this article was chosen to be evaluated was first that the activity instructed one to choose an article related to the overarching theme of the course. The article of clinical physiology was chosen because it is related to the medical field. However, after reading the first sentence in the article captured my attention about the topic because clinical physiology appears to be a specialty only found in Scandinavian nations; therefore, I wanted to learn more about it and what makes it special from other specialties in the field. This provides the perfect opportunity to evaluate it elaborately because I will be seeing if the article did a sufficient job at explaining the topic as an encyclopedia should.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Lead evaluation
Overall, the Lead of the article was brief, yet it provided well-rounded knowledge that adequately explained the concept of Clinical Physiology, where it could be found, and what do physicians in this specialty focus on. The introductory sentence described the topic concisely, allowing the reader to understand quickly that Clinical Physiology is a medical specialty and an academic discipline. Additionally, the Lead also included one or two sentences that introduce the article's major sections. However, the Lead did mention various tasks that the Clinical Physiologists do, but when it came to the major section about their "Role," it lacked the details that were present in the Lead. Nonetheless, the Lead was rather concise, but I believe that towards the end, where it lists all the test these physicians perform, the list should be shortened, so it does not become overwhelming; instead, the details would best fit the "Role" section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The article's content is relevant to the topic because the sections are presenting significant information about the topic that an interested reader would like to know; however, there is very little information, to begin with. Therefore, the content is rather lacklustre, because there are only two major content sections in the article and these sections are brief to boot. The "Roles" section there should be more elaboration on Clinical Physiologists' practice differences and also describe the significance of these physicians' research. Additionally, more sections should be included in the article, like other medical articles such as: "Education and Training," "Diagnosis," and "Procedures." Nonetheless, the content sections explain the roles that Clinical Physiologists perform, which is probably the essential part of the article currently, while the history is not as important, but its presence in the article is still appreciated. The information appears to be up-to-date; however, it is so little that there is not much information to evaluate if they are up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is relatively neutral, there are not claims that appear to be heavily biased because there was no controversial themes being presented in the article; therefore, there is no persuasion occurring within the text. The viewpoints were simply presented, nothing more; however, the article should present more information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Sources and references evaluation
There were about five sources in the 'references' section; however, throughout the article, there were facts that were obvious that secondary sources were used, but they lacked a citation footnote. Additionally, the sources in the reference list appear to be reliable because they seem to reflect the available literature, but when one analyses them further, it is evident that the majority of them do not work or lead to the correct location. Only one of the sources link led to an academic journal, but the rest did not. In general, the facts presented needed more citations of reliable sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
Despite its lack of in-depth knowledge which would have given it more structure, was well-written theoretically. There were no clear grammatical or spelling errors. The article was concise and clear in most parts, such as the Lead and the "Role" section; however, the "History" section felt somewhat rushed. Once again, the current sections should have been elaborated further, and additional sections should be added to reflect the many major points that could be found on this unique topic.

Images and Media
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
This article lacks images and any other types of media; therefore, there was nothing to evaluate for this section. Some images that could be used could be images of how a Clinical Physiologist might look like, a global map that highlights where the field is prevalent or taught at, or even examples of some tasks that they contribute in.

Checking the talk page
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
Minimal conversations are going on the talk page; the only conversation present in it have only two comments which both were questions written in 2018. The questions were about where the citations were found, and why Clinical Physiology is only found in Scandinavian nations and not other parts of the world. Therefore, the talk page does appear to be underdeveloped, just like this article. This article was rated as "a work in progress" and that it "has potential, " but it needs plenty of changes and elaboration so that it could be a proper and reliable Wikipedia page. The article is not a part of WikiProjects. Wikipedia, when discussing the topic, goes straight to the point and expresses the flaws of the article; however, they also provide ways in how the article can improve on those flaws.

Overall impression
Guiding questions:


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
Overall the article presents an interesting topic, but it is very underdeveloped. Its strengths lie in its Lead; however, when it comes to strengthening the points mentioned in the sections, the article needs to do a better job at providing more information that might clear up any doubts that a reader may have about Clinical Physiology. For example, the article should be able to answer the following questions: "Why is this an important medical specialty in certain countries?" and "What makes a Clinical Physiologist so special?" By answering these questions, the article will become stronger. Additionally, better sources should be found, and the citation section as a whole should be reworked.