User:Courtney.Yockel/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.) The article I am evaluating is Clinical physiology.

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I find clinical physiology interesting and thought I might enjoy reading it. This article matters because it provides a large amount of detail and insight into the field of clinical physiology. My preliminary impression was that although it is short, it provides a large amount of detail and information in a concise manner.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

I would say that everything in the article is relevant to the article topic. There wasn't anything that particularly distracted me. As I am not in expert in the field of clinical physiology, I cannot say whether or not any of the information appears out of date. The oldest publication date of the sources used is from 1990. I would not say that there is anything missing. I thought the author did a nice job of organizing the content by including the history of the field and its role in today's society. I thought it provided a nice overview of the field. The article does not underrepresent nor misrepresent historically marginalized persons.

Overall, I would say that the author does a nice job of keeping the tone relatively neutral. I would not say that there are any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented.

The majority of the links used in compiling citations work. Only one link that was included did not work. The sources are credible and support the information found in the article. The author does a nice job of ensuring that they include footnotes and that each fact is properly cited. The only section that lacks sourcing is the history section. The sources used are neutral and they come from a variety of sources, including government websites and scientific journals.

To improve the article I would suggest adding more topics of discussion for which the author could expand upon. The author also did not include any pictures. The article was also a bit difficult to understand. I would consider rewriting a few of the sentences that are particularly difficult to understand.

In terms of the Talk page, a large amount of Wikipedia users are concerned over the inclusion of improper citations. They also ask that the author find means of elaborating on particular topics, conducting more research, using only peer-reviewed sources, etc... The article was apart of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. The article is not rated.