User:Etc cyt/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: Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I currently take a course on Human Physiology and find it really interesting. Clinical physiology is also relevant to health professionals and could be a useful tool.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * 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? Yes, the Lead is a bit cluttered and contains a lot of details that could probably be included in subsections that aren't in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's overly detailed and contains information that should be in subsections.

Lead evaluation
Overall, although the Lead does accomplish what it is supposed to, it also accomplishes too much. The Lead was a big paragraph with a lot of overwhelming details that could have been organized within the article differently.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content up-to-date? Seems to be
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would have liked more detail but there doesn't seem to be basic information that is outright missing.

Content evaluation
The content is decent, but I would have liked there to be more substance and details about the exact nuances and differences of the field between different countries instead of 3 or 4 sentences on the topic.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
It was just an informative article.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No
 * Are the sources current? Most are 5-10 years old
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Not really

Sources and references evaluation
A lot of the sources are outdated or are broken/don't show what they are supposed to. Because of the nature of the topic, I don't think much information would have changed in the time since the sources were updated, but nonetheless the sources are not good.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Mostly yes
 * 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? No

Organization evaluation
Although it does have some of the sections (Roles and History), I think the topic could be broken down further country by country or procedure by procedure. I know that if I were researching the field that this would definitely not be enough information to be helpful.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
There were no images included.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Everyone agree that there isn't much substance to the article and that the citations are extremely poor.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? It was part of a WikiEducation project last semester.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? N/A

Talk page evaluation
Most of the reviewers agree with my opinion. Although the article has good potential and is a good start on the topic, it lacks substance and is dangerously close to being plagiarism with bad citations and close paraphrasing.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status? Work in progress, as it stands, not good
 * What are the article's strengths? information it has seems to be somewhat factual and interesting
 * How can the article be improved? more substance, better citations
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? poorly developed

Overall evaluation
Good start, but as of right now is a bad article. With more time and effort and some citation help it could be a good article.

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: