User:Aweems4/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.


 * Clinical physiology
 * I chose to evaluate the article Clinical Physiology because of its concise and interesting nature. It offered many things to evaluate, so I can get the most out of this exercise.

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
This article's lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. In addition, the lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is concise and provides necessary and relevant information.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The articles content is relevant to the topic. The last edit on this article was June 5, 2020. The article is short, so it needs more information to provide more detail and substance to the subject. This article does not deal with an equity gap and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

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
This article is neutral and does not provide any claims that are heavily biased. This article does not tried to persuade the reader in any direction. No viewpoints are over or underrepresented. It is strictly factual and informative.

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?
 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
The citations in the article are very poor. Some facts in the article are backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. The "history" section of this article has no cited sources. The sources in this article are thorough. However, the sources used in this article are a little outdated. One source used is from 2009. The sources in this article are written by a diverse spectrum of authors and include historically marginalized individuals where possible. Not all sources in the article loaded and worked when clicked.

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
The article is ultimately well written. It is very concise, but the mass of medical terms makes it a little unclear and harder to read. The article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article is well organized. It has the sections: role, history, references, and external links.

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
The article does not have any images. This would really enhance the topic and make it more understandable for readers and visual learners.

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
The conversations going on in the talk page are very relevant and point the article in a forward and helpful direction. The majority of conversation is advice to add more/ better citations and add more content to the page. They also head warning of plagiarism in some sections of the article. This article was in the "academic disciplines" section. We have not discussed this topic in class.

Overall impressions

 * 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, this article needs lots more work. It's main strength is its concise nature; however, it needs more content and better citations to enhance its credibility. This article could be improved by adding more sections and overall content. This article is underdeveloped, but with more work it would be considered a well written and well developed article.

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