User:Jaw0589/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Wandering atrial pacemaker

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I am interested in cardiology. I found this article to be short and concise but without a lot of detail. I think there is a great deal for expansion and some more clear explanations.

Lead Section
The article provides an introductory statement that does define the article's topic. There aren't any major sections to the article and so there is a bunch of random facts inside the lead section. I think the section could be refined to more accurately describe the article once it has been redone with different sections.

Content
The article's content is relevant but sparse in detail. There is content that is missing that could enrich a person's exposure to the topic. I didn't find any content that didn't belong. There is only one source that provide the source of the information in the article.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral and doesn't have a bias. The article is not detailed enough to present any specific professional opinion or viewpoint on the topic. There isn't any persuasion in the article.

Sources and References
The article has only one reference and so all the facts are not clearly represented in the article. The source is current and was written within the past 5-6 years. The source used is from an academic book that is used for practicing cardiac rhythm interpretations, There are better sources available that could provide more detail on the topic. The source doesn't provide a link to actually view the information since it is from a book.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is clear but sparse in detail. There aren't any grammatical or spelling errors. There isn't any organization because there is only a small section about the topic at the start.

Images and Media
There is one image of an ECG strip. The image is unclear on how the strip reads as wandering atrial pacemaker and therefore is useless in any attempt at learning from it. The caption merely states the article title again but gives no concise explanation as to what it shows.

Talk Page Discussion
There is no talk page discussion going on for this topic. It relates to the Cardiology WikiProject.

Overall Impressions
I think the overall status of this article is poor. There isn't much information presented and it is very concise. I think there could be more explanation to provide an easier read for someone who is not familiar with the medical field. The article should have a few sections and therefore would help the flow of the overall article. Overall, the article is underdeveloped,