User:FMANON/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I enjoy learning and reading about the medical sciences. It peaked my interest and got my attention.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:


 * The lead does include a sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
 * The lead does include a brief description of the major sections.
 * Yes the lead does include information that is not in the article.
 * The lead is overly detailed.

Content:


 * The article's content somewhat relevant to the topic. The information is not thorough enough.
 * the content is not up to date as it is 10 years old.
 * (Is there content that is missing?)
 * It does not represent marginalized populations or equity gaps.

Tone and Balance:


 * The article is neutral
 * There are no claims that are particularly biased.
 * there are no points that are overrepresented
 * The article does not persuade the reader in favour from one position or the other.
 * There are no minority or fringe groups misrepresented.

Sources and references:


 * All the facts in the article are not fact checked (http://www.sscpnm.com)
 * Some of the sources are not current are more than 10 years old. (Arheden H (December 2009). "Clinical physiology: a successful academic and clinical discipline is threatened in Sweden". Advances in Physiology Education. 33 (4): 265–7. doi:10.1152/advan.00072.2009. PMID 19948671. S2CID 12888994)
 * All of the sources are not thorough ("Clinical Physiology." Archived 2013-04-20 at the Wayback Machine from Griffith University. Retrieved December 2013).
 * The sources are not a spectrum of diverse authors.
 * Not all of the links work. Most of the links are either pages that are unfound or are pages that are not fully functional.
 * There are better sources that are available. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2190746/ Though the linked source is older it is from a trusted author and provider.

Organization and writing quality


 * The article is not a clear document to read and does not have cohesiveness. There are many run on sentences and comma splices found in this article.
 * The article is not well organized. The sentences and some of the information that is found in the other subtopics could be placed in the leading introductory paragraph.
 * There are no spelling errors but there are many grammatical errors.

Images and Media


 * There are no images in the article.

Talk Page Discussion


 * The conversation asks questions about the article that I think is quite necessary. It forces the author of the article to think about the article in a way in which that adds more content to the article.
 * The article is not apart of any Wikiprojects.
 * The author does not respond to the talk on the article. This goes against the guidelines that Wikipedia has set out to ensure that the content is peer-reviewed and constantly checked to be improved.

Over all Impressions


 * The overall status of the article is unfinished and lacks completeness.
 * There are no strengths to this article.
 * The article can be improved by creating conciseness. The article can also be grammatically improved. Another area for improvement would be the research done and the sources being linked to the article.
 * The article is very poorly developed and lacks completeness.