User:Chang.sar/sandbox

= Article Review- Cryotherapy =

Evaluating content

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * What else could be improved?

Yes, everything in the article was relevant to the topic. There was not any writing in the article that diverged from the topic. There does not seem to be any out of date information, however a section regarding efficacy of cryotherapy could be further discussed. I liked how there was a separate section for each form of cryotherapy, however I think that they could be expanded on as well.

Evaluating tone

 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Yes, the tone of the article is neutral. There are no claims present in the writing, and no overrepresented or underrepresented viewpoints.

Evaluating sources

 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes the links do work. The sources also support the material covered in the article. Most of these sources come from either sports or medical journals, therefore are reliable. Some of the paragraphs lack citations, so additional ones need to be added.

Checking the talk page
Now take a look at how others are talking about this article on the talk page.


 * 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?

The conversations mainly center around how the main usage for the term cryotherapy generally refer to cryosurgery, and how to make the distinction between the two. However I noticed that most of these conversations were from 2006, therefore there has not been many edits in more recent years. The article currently has a "Start" status, meaning that it may have inadequate or questionable sources and needs to be more fully developed. Yes, it is part of the WikiProject Medicine. We have not talked about this topic in class, therefore I can not say how the article differs.

= Wikipedia article topic: Gait Training = This article does not have any clear structure or organization, therefore I will be adding headings and subheadings, as well as expanding upon the subject material. I would like to touch upon the different equipment that can be used with gait training, as well as some considerations to be taken into account while doing gait training, such as the weight-bearing status of the patient.