User:Deets2023/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Provide a link to the article here.)

Fetal distress

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 am interested in specializing in Pediatrics, so the care of newborns and any distress prior to birth is important to me. Additionally I have noticed that a lot of doctors use the term "fetal distress" during delivery and many expectant parents might have questions about this during what is a stressful time. Overall the article has the basic information but lacks many details parents might want to know.

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.)

Lead Section:


 * Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes.
 * Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes.
 * Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.) The lead mentions some treatment options such as amnioinfusion and tocolysis that was not mentioned in the "treatment" section.
 * Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content:


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would appreciate more information on how they assess/diagnose non-reassuring fetal status
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance:


 * 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.
 * Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? n/a
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References:


 * 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? no- more information can be added.
 * Are the sources current? for the most part. some sources are more than 5 years old.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Most written by people in medicine. And mainly American perspective.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) one source point to a University of Michigan Medicine website. There are probably better sources for this.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes.

Organization and Quality of Work:


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes only some medical jargon
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? no
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes

Images and Media:


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? minimal images that don't add much to understanding
 * Are images well-captioned? yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Talk Page Discussion:


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? no much besides initial workplace of article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start class with High importance