User:Haadiya.a/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: (link)
 * Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because the field of Physiology is extremely important in todays medical, scientific, and technological fields. It is an extremely complex topic that includes an entire subsection of biological sciences, which is a topic I am especially interested in.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an introductory sentence which clearly describes that Clinical Physiology is defined as the application of the knowledge of human physiology to patients in a health care setting, which is mostly used by doctors. The Lead includes a legend which outlines the major sections which are the Roles, History, References, and External links used in the article. The Lead includes information about various testing methods used to evaluate the physiology of patients, this information is not found in any other section of the article but is detailed in the Lead. The Clinical Physiology Articles Lead is concise, while it contained a variety of information about the topic, it never goes off topic and remained focused on clinical physiology and its purpose in medical and diagnostic sciences.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The articles content is relevant to the topic, the content includes both the role of clinical physiology and the History of how it was first established. Both these major topics include extensive details on what clinical physiology is, and how it is used. The articles most recent addition change was in June 2020, when someone fixed a citation mistake, this suggests that the article is constantly being reviewed and critiqued, therefore the content is up to date. While the History section includes information from 1954, 2008 and 2015, there should be more information regarding what lead to clinical physiology becoming its own discipline independent of radiology, and when scientist and doctors discovered the field of study. Additionally, there is no information on how Clinical Physiologists differ from regular physicians, and why the Swedish Government initially started the program for clinical physiology. The article does not deal with Wikipedia’s equity gaps, and it also doesn’t include information related to historically underrepresented populations. Overall the content in the article describes the field of clinical physiology in great detail while also being concise and informative.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The articles tone is neutral, it only presents information about the topic and does not include any opinions or thoughts. There aren’t any claims that are heavily biased, nor are there any viewpoints which are overrepresented or underrepresented. The article states many times that clinical physiology is its own discipline, but never explains why or how this was established. To the reader this seems like an attempt to persuade the reader into believing that clinical physiology is its own discipline while it never explains why or why not it may be its own discipline, or how it may be different from general physiology. Additionally, the article suggests that the Swedish Government first distinguished the field of clinical physiology but the article doesn't explain how this happened, or talk about other countries and governments that did the same; this may come off as an attempt to persuade the reader into believing that clinical physiology was created in Sweden as this fact is not backed up by any primary or secondary sources.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

Some of the facts in the article are not backed up by any source, such as one fact stated in the article that clinical physiology was first established in 1954, additionally there are no citations in the History section. Another fact that is not backed up by any source is the claim that clinical physiology was first distinguished in Sweden. The sources stated in the References and External Links sections include an Academic Journal which focuses on Clinical Physiology and Functional Imaging, which reflects on the available literature on the topic. The sources are current, ranging from December 2009 to December 2013, but the range of dates is small. The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors, most of the authors are experts in science, or authors of physiological institutions. Out of the six References only three links work, as some of the journals have been removed.


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is well written, the topics are easy to read, concise and clear. The articles does not have any grammatical or spelling errors, the wording in the article is intellectual and it reflects the importance of the topic. The article is well organized, it is broken down into four sections, Role, History, References, and External Links. While there are four main sections there should be more sections explaining the difference between a regular physician and a clinical physiologist, there should also be a section which explains how the field of clinical physiology is relevant in the veterinary field and other fields. Additionally, the History section is vague and should include more detail and reliable sources to back up the claims and facts.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not include any images in the entire article. Images would enhance the ability for readers to understand the topic which is why they should be included. The topic of clinical physiology would be better explained if there were images showing the importance of human physiology in the medial field. Additionally, there should be graphs and or charts distinguishing countries which differentiate between physiologists, radiologists, and clinical physiologists. Images would also illustrate how the clinical physiology field enhanced the medical and veterinary field.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The talk page has many conversations that suggest that the article needs more sources, and it needs to differentiate between physiologists and clinical physiologists. Some readers also suggested that the article needs to build on their facts and should also indicate the role clinical physiology had on veterinary sciences. Additionally, there are conversations questioning the accuracy of the history of clinical physiology, the article didn’t have any resources or articles that reinforced the statement that the Swedish Government established Clinical Physiology. The Clinical Physiology article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation supported course assignment between August 28, 2019 and December 15, 2019


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

The article is clear and concise, the wording is easy to understand and it does explain what the topic is about. The articles strengths include being clear and to the point, it never goes off topic and has good wording choices. The article should be expanded greatly, it should include many more subsections which could explain and differentiate clinical physiology from the other forms of physiology and also explain the significance of clinical physiology in modern and classical medicine. Additionally, the article can be improved if facts are backed up with articles and reliable sources. The history section also has room for improvement, where the establishment of clinical physiology should be clearly stated and the reason for why it was differentiated from regular physiology. Initially it seems like the article is complete, but after analyzing the article many times it is clear that it is underdeveloped and needs to have many more sections to portray the complexity of the topic. The article only includes the Role and History of Clinical Physiology as the main discussion points, but many other points can be made to portray the complexity of the topic, therefore, the article is underdeveloped.


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

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: Talk:Clinical physiology