User:Jrb2022/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cardiac asthma

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I am interested in the field of Cardiology and once evaluated a patient on rotation where cardiac asthma was on the differential. Looking to this article, I found that the bulk of the article was vague in regards to eliciting characteristics and etiology of the disease outside of association to congestive heart failure, and there is room for elaboration and organization of information into an easy to read format. I believe that this topic matters because it can help shed light on a diagnosis that may be missed on initial observation by physician, and provides insight into a diagnosis that could indicate increasing severity of a chronic medical condition.

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.)

The lead section appears to be the entirety of the article, but the majority of the article is dedicated to discussing bronchial asthma. The lead sentence does not promote a clear representation of what cardiac asthma is, but rather a list of symptoms associate. Elaboration of this section to give readers a quick look into what cardiac asthma is and a representation of what to expect in the remainder of the article would be a good start to improvement.

The content of the article appear to focus more on bronchial asthma instead of discussing etiology of cardiac origin. I think a short comparison section would be warranted, but not to comprise the majority of this page. There is room for expansion of the cardiac origin, and how symptoms arise due to pathological/physiological changes.

The tone and balance of the article appear to be neutral for the majority, but there is need to expand on differentiating bronchial v cardiac asthma with evidence and not statements of exclusion such as "nothing to do with."

The sources and references appear to go in line with the topic, but do require additional sources to help elucidate the etiology of cardiac asthma.

The organization of the article appears to be a running list of thoughts rather than a planned format. There is plenty of opportunity to create an easier to read and follow format that will benefit future onlookers.

There are no linked images.

This article is rated as a mid-importance Stub, and part of the Wikiproject Physiology page. Many of the talk page requests reference recategorizing the page and move to an alternate diagnosis. I believe there is plenty of room for improvement in the article and expanding on the etiology and symptomatology of cardiac asthma.