User:Cah593/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: (link) Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate

I chose this article because I am interested in physiology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? In a way yes, but it more describes where it's used than what it is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little wordy.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, is it
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, it is
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, it's all there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No, not that I can see.

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, it doesn't appear so.
 * 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? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? They appear to be around 10 years old, roughly.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not that I can tell
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Some yes, some no

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? Not that I could spot.
 * 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? People are wanting more information and better sources.
 * 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? We haven't

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? This article is okay. The lack of pictures and solid references make it more difficult to understand and trust. There is also not a lot of information.
 * What are the article's strengths? It is written from a neutral point of view
 * How can the article be improved? It needs pictures and stronger sources.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? I would say underdeveloped, but it is a strong start.

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: