User:Hart Hequembourg/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I think the subject of clinical physiology is very interesting. I think this is important for understanding how diseases work and is important for people interested in healthcare to understand.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Although the lead section is relatively short I do think it offers a good explanation of what clinical physiology is. The lead also includes a table of contents that shows the contents of the article (Overview, history, role, references, external links). I think the article is well structured and easy to follow. It does not focus too much on one aspect of clinical physiology and gives a concise overview of it that would be easy for someone who had no previous knowledge to understand. The article is written from a neutral point of view and does not seem biased in one direction or the other. The article appears to use reliable resources that are up to date and reflect the current understanding of clinical physiology. The links to the references work. The article is well written and structured. However, there are no images included in the article. There seems to be an extensive revision history on the article which is good and means a lot of people have put in an effort to make it a reliable source. I think the article was very good and if anything could include more information since it was very short.