User:MULuna/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)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because it is a topic that interests me and that goes with my major. I thought it would be interesting to read a little more about the clinical aspect of physiology.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there are the main details one should know about the topic as well as main points about the definition and treatment options.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, there is a context section right below the introduction to allow reader to jump to a desired section.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it doesn't.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I thinks its concise with the important information necessary. Its neither including too much or too little.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the article does a nice job staying on topic and only including things relevant to it.
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * For the most part it seems okay for the information it has, but it could have more added for recent years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No all the content there does belong, but there could me more that can be added.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Yes, the article is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No everything seems to be neutral taking no sides.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No they were all represented fair and equally.
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the article is neutral taking no good or bad sides.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, most of them were backed up by Wikipedia sources and only some other sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they give a lot more information on the general topics that are present.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes most seemed to be current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the linked worked.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes the article is easy to follow.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, there's no errors that I found
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes there are different sections, but more information could be added.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * No there are not images.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No images used.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * No images used.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * No images used.

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There aren't a lot of conversations on this page, just a few questions of information and some people saying it needs more information comparing clinical physiology to other health related jobs.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * This article seems to be a start since more information could be added and this was part of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment this past year.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * This was a shorter article that could use more information so it is simpler that what we've talked about in class.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * Overall the article seems like a start and could become better.
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * This article does a good job in giving the background and history of the topic.
 * How can the article be improved?
 * This article could you more sources and could include more information in regards to other medical aspects. Also pictures could help make the article better.
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
 * The article is not poorly developed but it also doesn't seem complete to the most it can be so underdeveloped.

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: