User:Haldred2/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy :
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead: Vague description of what it is, could use some polishing up. Start w/ low-importance
 * Content: Gaps in the content, goes from really scientific talk about the genes to very easy to comprehend. Jumps back and forth between style and how it's read/presented. Diagnosis and treatment need refining, there's information not presented in this section (delivery of the placenta therapeutic, some patients can experience symptoms much longer after delivery, additional risks associated with ICP, other lab markers that can be indicators, the fact it's a mix of labs and clinical judgement for diagnosis).
 * Tone/Balance: stays neutral
 * Organization: Broken down well, but the style seems to change throughout. Doesn't read easily, could use polishing
 * Overall: Start, low-importance but is something I've seen come up in clinic a lot. Empowering pregnant women with knowledge and understanding of complications of pregnancy is very important to me


 * Sources
 * Plenty of sources out there, might be able to find more on the MOA
 * Current sources look good, but need to be reviewed for updating. Looks like the article hasn't been updated in a bit so likely more out there
 * References third party organization pages like march of dimes

Option 2

 * Tympanostomy tube:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead: Good introduction to tubes, the lead contains information that should be in a subcategory. Start w/mid-importance
 * Content: Fairly vague information about the different types of tubes. No history provided about them, formerly used metal tubes not anymore, could be a nice section to include since it was touched on, but isn't touched further. Does a good job talking about indications for the tubes, but should be revised. Talk page suggested having an otoscope image of a tube which is a great idea. Just a lot of spaces to improve upon and make more concise
 * Tone/Balance: Stay neutral, not persuasive
 * Organization: Fairly well structured but needs content reorganized.
 * Overall: Start, mid-level importance. Lots of room for improvement on this article. Could be polished into something nice. Has room to explore what other countries do for tubes outside of the united states as well.


 * Sources
 * Several spots where citations are needed
 * Somewhat anemic on sources talking about the tubes themselves and how long they last/contraindications/etc. Fairly easy to find information on this topic doing a quick search.

Option 3

 * Myringotomy:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead: Lots of information in the lead that is touched on later in the sub-sections. Could be reworked to include better information that is more clear and concise for just the lead. C-class article, mid-level importance.
 * Content:  Overall the content is good, but the article is in need of more structural and wording changes. At its core, there's a lot of good information that is well supported via citations, but it could be improved and updated. Also information on any new procedures/guidelines with said procedures should be updated as well since it was last updated in 2017. An imagine of the procedure could be added to page as well.
 * Tone/Balance: Section about the CO2 laser sounds like an ad, is almost persuasive for wanting people to use it. That section should be updated.
 * Organization: Improperly organized. Has history before technique, contraindications, risks, and recovery. Needs restructured
 * Overall: C-class, mid-level importance. Has issues with structuring and how things are worded. Not really a neutral article, seems to love the laser section. Good sources and content, but last updated in 2017 so new procedures/contraindications/aftercare/etc. should be checked and updated accordingly


 * Sources
 * One spot where a citation is needed
 * Good information about the procedure with the given sources, could check for updating content

Option 4

 * Nail Clubbing:
 * Article Evaluation
 * Lead: Doesn't actually describe what nail clubbing is, but rather what it's associated with. Is described in a difficult to understand fashion later in the article. C-level, mid-importance.
 * Content:  Does a good job with listing associated conditions that can cause nail clubbing and the pathogenesis of nail clubbing, but doesn't really get at what nail clubbing actually is until later in the article. A lot of great content, but more structural, stylistic, and organizational problems than content gaps. Mentions a few things, but more information is needed (pseudoclubbing). Better pictures could be find/efforts to include different skin tones with the clubbing. Epidemiology would be cool to update.
 * Tone/Balance: Stays neutral throughout.
 * Organization: Structure and organization should both be revised for this article.
 * Overall: Really good content, but just a struggle for the organization/structure. Makes it hard to read with somewhat random pictures just thrown in (there's a painting below the references included where a man has clubbed fingers?)


 * Sources
 * Good amount of sources with lots of information to refresh on. Easy to find more on clubbing in literature.
 * One spot where a citation is needed and more spots where more information could be added