User:Dshan19/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: (Supraventricular tachycardia)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article because I have a history of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) and received a cardiac ablation to treat it. Since I have personal experience with SVT I find the topic interesting and was also curious to see if the information presented in this article is accurate.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead's introductory sentence includes a definition of what SVT is. The definition provided is clear and concise. I think it could easily be understood by someone with no medical knowledge or background.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Following the definition of what SVT is, the lead lists the four main types of fast heart rhythms that will be discussed in the article. It also mentions topics that are major sections in the article such as signs and symptoms, diagnosis, and treatments.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. The lead is well organized and gives a good summary of what the article is about. Everything mentioned in the lead is discussed throughout the body of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think it is concise without being too detailed. The lead gives the reader a good overview of the topic and effectively organizes the information in the article.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is related to SVT. I did not find any of the information presented to be irrelevant to the topic.
 * Is the content up-to-date? Yes, the page was last edited on Nov. 30th, 2019. The sources provided in the reference section are also up to date and range from 2010-2016.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. I felt that the content provided was relevant to the topic. No important information was missing.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes. The article is fact based and does not show any opinion or bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * 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? The section on prevention does not cite any sources. The rest of the article cites sources, and the reference page lists 17 sources in total.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. The article got the bulk of its information from the national heart, blood, and lung institute (NHLBI). NHLBI is part of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. This is a government run website and credible source. They also used data from hospitals, medical textbooks, and online articles.
 * Are the sources current? Yes. The sources range from 2010-2016.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. It explains all medical terminology in simple terms. It is well organized and formatted in a way that is easy to follow. I think most people would be able to read this article and understand the information being presented.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I noticed or could find.
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. The article has a different section for each major topic that is discussed in the article.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes. There are two pictures of hearts showing the conduction impulses of SVT and Afib.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes. Each picture explains the type of rhythm being depicted and how it travels within the heart.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Probably not. The images do not cite a copyright source. From the information provided it states that the work is assumed to have been made by the author. I am not sure if that has to be explicitly stated if it is the author's own work.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? A lot of the conversations involve people that have or have had SVT. Many of them are sharing their own personal experiences, or asking questions about how other people have dealt with this condition. For example there is one conversation that is specifically about cardiac ablations. The person is this conversation asks if anyone has ever had one, and if SVT can reoccur after an ablation is performed.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? C-class. It is part of WikiProject Physiology and WikiProject Medicine.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? We have not gotten to this topic yet in class. Based on the topics we have discussed in class I think it differs because on Wikipedia it can literally be anyone reading the article, but in class we are all medical professionals. The information we are taught in class is specific to the degree we are going for and nurse practitioner students. Wikipedia has the goal of reaching the general public, therefore the goal is for the information to be concise and easy to understand. For us in the classroom information is extremely detailed and tailored for someone that already has a medical background.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? I am unsure of how to answer this question but the article appears to be completed.
 * What are the article's strengths? It explains SVT in an organized and easy to understand way. I also liked the visuals as well as the audio clip. I think the article has good sources that are up to date and credible.
 * How can the article be improved? Finding sources for the prevention section of the article.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? The article is well-developed and when you get to the end of reading it you feel like it is complete. It doesn't leave you feeling like anything is missing.

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: