User:BKgunner2003/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Pulmonology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this article because I have experience in doing research about lung disease that is caused by environmental factors as well as pathogens.

Evaluate the article
The article is well written that can be a good starting resource for both educated and non-educated audience as it was written in a concise and lay language. The lead included brief informative description that included the origin of the word, its meaning and category in medicine discipline. It was focused on the topic and did not divert away from the main theme which is informing about pulmonology.

The article's content is relevant to the topic that elaborates the pulmonology speciality and subspecialties. Each bullet was described evenly which gives the general information of what a pulmonology is in medicine. The article used sources that are up-to-date as much as possible considering the topic's slow progression in time. One of the shortcomings of the article is that it did not address the equity gaps. It did not provide information about the racial composition of trainees as well as patients treated with that specialty, which can shade a light into improvement of patient treatment from different background.

The article was written from neutral point of view as it describes all aspects of the field and not lure the audience into just one way. It tried to describe the subspecialties, treatment, diagnosis, research, and education, which are all relevant to understand what pulmonology is about. Although some of the content needs further explanation, such as pulmonary journals, in which they just listed the hyperlinks which may be difficult to understand for some audiences. Instead, it would be good idea to elaborate each section in a lay language just like they did in the introductory sections.

In terms of sources and references, they used peer-reviewed journals and reliable organizations. This makes the article a reliable resource to understand the topic about pulmonology. They used diverse authors as well as organizations that can shade a light into the understanding of pulmonology in general. The hyperlinks that provided also work. They also provided images with proper captions that supports written information.

In the talk page, there are civilized discussion among editors that touches about the article title, authorship, cleaning up the article, etc. It was great to see editors work together to improve the article.

Overall, the article was good source for anyone who wants to know and understand what pulmonology means. It provides relevant information to the audience in a concise, lay-language term. The main weakness I believe I found was some of the contents needs elaboration. Therefore, wit minor improvement, the article can be considered well-developed.