User:Dshergil/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose to evaluate this article, because it is something that I am familiar with. This article matters to me, because clinical physiology is a topic that has always been interesting to me, especially when we do get the chance to look at studies, I was always intrigued by the results. My preliminary impression of it was that this article was just kind of a definition page of what clinical physiology is. So it was a nice intro page.

Evaluate the article
After evaluating this article, I found that it was a decent intro to clinical psychology page, however it was still lacking in a few aspects. Here is my evaluation.


 * I feel like there could be a subsection added regarding the different types of testing
 * It had a good overview at the beginning, but adding a subsection would rely more information, but also in a more organized way
 * The sources related to this article are kind of old. There was only one source that was relevant within the last 10 years but there are a few sources before the year 2000.
 * The citations need to be looked over again
 * The article did a very good job at staying neutral and keeping the tone unbiased
 * The article had a very underdeveloped history section
 * It was fairly short, but did not mention really the differences between what makes a clinical physiologist different from a regular physiologist and doctors, who provide similar treatments
 * Not enough references in regards to why clinical physiologist was started in Sweden; it just kind of says that it was
 * There was a lack of images, which adds to the lack of depth to the article
 * The talk page of this article is used, which is nice to see, so that changes and discussions can flow