User:Jtc64/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I choose this topic because I honestly didn't know much about clinical physiology. It is important because of the nuance that I keep stating because their are places in the world that due refute this as science.

Evaluate the article
Evaluating Clinical Physiology

Lead Section

- very concise, and the definition also highlights the nuance

- Does not really include a description of the major sections

- Everything in the lead is present in the article

- Lead is concise

Content

- content all pertains to Clinical Physiology

- Yes and it is extremely important especially with this being a more contemporary idea

- as far as I know, they hit all the major topics-- went and did personal research outside of wikipedia and found the same information

- Yes, this is a very nuanced field

Tone and Balance

- it is hard to be unbiased in any work, but this article does come from an "insiders POV". If i were someone stumbling upon this site I would probably not know many of the topics addressed and that just speaks more to the topic rather than the way it was written.

- no heavy claims

- actually no, both opposers and those who believe in or perpetuate the belief are equally given a voice

- there were no minority or fringe beliefs as it is a science but not a concentration

- only things I feel this article does is inform!

Sources and References

- yes, all of them

- yes, possibly could have used more and expanded on the topic but also those expansions just become new topics with new wikipedia pages

- yes

- no, I don't believe their are many articles by historically marginalized people on this topic ( doesn't necessarily excuse them )

- I mean this one is tough, most of the articles I find are saying the same thing as the source material. That being said they could have most likely dug deeper and found more current material.

- links work correctly

Organization and Writing Quality

- very concise and well to read, a lot of info in a short page

- not that I noticed, I am good with spelling, not so much of a pro at spotting out grammar errors.

- Yes

Images and Media

- no images

Talk Page

- In 2018 someone asked for clarification and where they got information (since been resolved)

- Someone asked about the History section as there aren't citations

Overall Impressions

- Overall status of this article is it being underdeveloped, this article could use someone going through and updating the sources as well as adding new and updated sources. A lot of the research is tailored to the Scandinavian research, should involve both eastern and western views on Clinical Physiology.