User:Clarivmelero/sandbox

Clinical Physiology


 * 1) Do the Links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * 2) * I checked the link of the first paragraph and they all took me to a working page. Yes, the sources support the details on what is clinical physiology and the specifics of the job.
 * 3) Reliable reference? Where does information come from? Neutral or bias sources?
 * 4) * There were a few sources that seemed reliable and a few of the references didn't work. Some of the information came from the american physiological society. The website was neutral and didn't seem bias.
 * 5) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?
 * 6) * The article is pretty straight forward and doesn't show sides being under or overrepresented.
 * 7) Is everything in the article relevant to the topic?
 * 8) * The information within the article was relevant and didn't go into detail about something that should be talked about vaguely.
 * 9) Is any information out of date?
 * 10) * A few of the references for the article were old webpages that no longer exist.
 * 11) Is anything missing that could be added?
 * 12) * The article should talk more about the type of people who study clinical physiology like if this profession is practiced by more women or men.
 * 13) * Talk about how clinical physiology has improved over the years and its technology?
 * 14) What else can be improved?
 * 15) * Better references
 * 16) Talk page
 * 17) * There wasn't anything on the talk page except for one question.