User:Esa0705/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Tetralogy of Fallot

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article as cardiology is something that I personally find very interesting. In particular, defects of the heart are things I find very interesting. I chose this article because it exemplifies the exact type of Wikipedia page I would frequently access in my chosen career path.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section

In terms of the lead section, the article is well written and gets the main ideas of the condition across. However, I feel as though some of this information is sorted poorly, and feels somewhat all over the place. For example, the article begins by talking about ToF as a congenital heart condition, but does not explain the four constituent parts of the tetralogy until the second paragraph, with the first paragraph instead stating what the condition itself is and then listing symptoms, without a proper introduction. This is also repeated in the layout of the article itself, beginning with symptoms before discussing the actual disease itself. However, as a whole, the lead introduces all of the main ideas of the article well, giving the user an abridged version of the whole article, with the exception of the Diagnosis section. No indication is made as to how ToF is diagnosed in this lead section.

Content

In terms of content, the article presents all information in a clear, concise way. Nothing presented is particularly out of place, and all information presented is presented for a clear reason. For example, in the Diagnosis section, the article clearly states what the diagnosis for ToF is, as well as the risk associated with it and so on. Furthermore, it provides a brief description of a secondary test in the event that the first test is inconclusive, and provides a short history of how the illness was diagnosed in the past. The pictures throughout the article support the content well. One criticism would be to elaborate further on comorbidities or correlated conditions, perhaps even creating a section for this.

Tone and Balance

The article presents all information in a clear, factual, impartial manner. No indication is made to try to persuade the reader of any particular opinion.

Sources and References

The article is backed up by a total of 58 references cited throughout the article. Of all the ones tested, the links all appeared to work and lead to valid websites or other sources. Most of the sources were from credible sources as well, with most of them being within the past 20 years. This timeframe can be considered current as there have not been large innovations in terms of ToF in this time frame. A variety of sources from a diverse group of authors was chosen.

Organization and Writing Quality

The article is well-written, free of grammatical mistakes, and is easy to follow. One concern as mentioned above would perhaps be the addition of a comorbidity section. Reorganization to move the four parts of the condition to the beginning would be an improvement as well.

Images and Media

Images are all well-captioned, from relevant sources, and enhance the reader's understanding of the topic at hand.

Talk Page

The talk page for this article shows the evolution of the language used throughout the article. Many of the changes were for clarity, such as scientific language. Many of the discussions on the talk page featured personal experiences, as well as medical student insight. It is classified as C-class high importance, and is a part of Wikiprojects for Medicine and Genetics.

Overall

Overall, this article is well-written. It shows all facts in an easy to follow way, with supporting materials and pictures to back up all information. Some small organizational changes wouold help improve overall readability of the article.