User:Lolbud0/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
 * I am interested in learning about medicine, and wish to pursue it as a career. Clinical physiology is not a term that I am familiar with, so I thought it would be interesting to learn about.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes and introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the article's topic of Clinical physiology.

The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections. Instead, it briefly describes the overall definition of the topic.

It does include introductory information that is not present in the rest of the article.


 * 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?

Content

 * Guiding questions

The article's content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. The history section within the article appears to be sparse and lacks citations.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral and does not have any claims that appear heavily biased towards a particular position. No overrepresentation or underrepresentation of any viewpoints that would persuade the reader in anyway.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions
 * All of the facts in the article are backed up my a reliable secondary source, and they all appear to be current. The few links that I clicked on to check the sources worked. However, some links that were explored did not link to any article and appeared to be broken.


 * 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?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

Article is well-written, concise, and clear in reading. No grammatical or spelling errors spotted, and the article is organized in a reasonable manner.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images included in the article.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Conversations within the talk page seem to be focused on the lack of information in the history section. Lots of tips and means for improving the article are mentioned in the talk page as well.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions
 * The overall status of the article appears to be incomplete, and the author is still making edits recently. The strengths of the article are that is is neutral and delivers the information in a concise and unbiased manner. However, the are errors in some of the citations and many sections are incomplete and lack evidence or data. With the completed sections of the article, is is well-developed, but the unfinished sections need work. The article can be improved by the addition of more reliable sources. This way, more information can be portrayed and presented for the reader, and it will be reliable as well.


 * 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?

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: