User:JustinxLane/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Hydrochlorothiazide - Wikipedia

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it talks about a drug, I'm relatively familiar with. Additionally, this drug is something patients commonly take at the moment so I think this information could have a large impact on patients.

Lead section
I think it does a good job underlying the important points like adverse effects, indications a bit of labeling info. It wasn't too long either and well written.

Content
The content for the most part is pretty good. But when comparing the effectiveness of hydrochlorothiazide to indapamide it mentioned more trials need to be done to understand the difference in their efficacy. I believe some trials like this are now out, so this is a place where the knowledge could be updated. However, one thing I didn't like was that brand names were under the cultural section. I feel like it deserves its own section especially considering their importance in patient identification of the drug.

--In the adverse effects section I think some of them could be emphasized and others can be removed.

Tone and balance
Neutral? Yes

There were no large issues with the other 4 concepts

Sources and references
-I like their sources, they used ALLHAT which is a crucial trial for describing antihypertensives. Additionally in some sections they had three references supporting one point which was really good and they all looked to be systemic reviews or other reputable sources

-What I didn't like was the regions where sources were missing. In addition to this as I mentioned earlier some more current information was missing suggesting a more recent review of the literature might be indicated.

Organization and writing quality
One thing that really bothered me was that the point comparing hydrochlorothiazide to indapamide was in the medical uses section. I feel like this can be given its own section and more information can be added perhaps comparing it to other thiazide diuretics like chlorthalidone

I also didn't like how the article looked. I feel like by employing more subheadings it can make the words look better. And personally, I'm more inspired to read something when it has that better look.

In terms of grammar this isn't my strength however there were no issues that screamed out to me.

Images and media
It wasn't the longest article so the three images might be enough, however, I think another could be added in the mechanism of action section to help people visualize the area of the kidney they affect. Especially considering how difficult that concept could be to visualize without an image.

Talk page and history
There wasn't much in the talk page, only someone talking about a grammatical error. However, people had linked their talk pages and it seems like people are making good changes to the references and other elements like that.

Overall impression
The article is ok but not the best out there

The strengths of this article would be the referencing that is there in addition to most of the information since to me it seems reasonable

The weaknesses are the references that are missing, some of the organization and the adverse effects section since if I didn't have a prior knowledge of the adverse effects I might have trouble differentiating the important ones

The article could be improved be restructuring and reorganizing some things such as the adverse effects section, maybe by breaking it into notable adverse effects and others to give the patient a better understanding of the important ones. Additionally the literature could be reviewed more thoroughly, and new information could be added in some places.