User:Lbaloga/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Clinical Physiology (Clinical physiology)
 * I chose this article to evaluate because I am very fascinated with human physiology in a general sense and plan to work in a clinical setting.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The lead of the article is well formulated and concise enough so not to ramble on about specificities of clinical physiology. The article doesn't have very many sections to begin with so the areas mentioned help further explain clinical physiology to the uninformed reader. The lead does include information that is not present in the article such as testing methods and how it applies to a health setting.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Simply put, there is not a lot of information on clinical physiology within this article. A very brief history of the field and the role clinical physiology plays relative to health and clinical settings are the only sections present aside from the lead. That being said, the information that is present seems to be relevant and up-to-date on the topic. Lastly, there is nothing present in the article that would deal with an equity gap or acknowledge underrepresented peoples.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

The article is relaying relevant information on a topic; there are no biases, positions taken, etc.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources are within the last decade or so which to me is okay, but there are plenty of topics that require more up-to-date references. All of the information within the article is properly backed up by information found in the references, but some of the sources need to be evaluated further. For example, references 3 and 4 both need a full citation, reference 3 is in Danish, and reference 4 does not seem very legitimate.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The article is written well, in the professional sense, and without any grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

The talk page is mostly full of comments that call for more information on the topic and work on the references. Overall, the article is rated pretty poorly by the handful of people that commented on the talk page.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

The only strength of the article is that it successfully introduced me to clinical physiology. Other than that, more information is needed such as more history about the origin/development of the field and more contemporary practices. In a positive sense, the article is a work in progress being that the information present is relevant and well laid out, but more can easily be added to enhance the article.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: