User:Mfino23/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Blood

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.)

I chose this article because I have a strong interest in the medical field and I think that blood is a very general topic that can be easy to evaluate for a beginner Wikipedia. My preliminary impression of the article was that it was very long and detailed, which makes sense as blood is very researched and asked about around the world. It seems to be decently structured and easy to follow.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

Lead:

The first sentence of the lead section is short, simple, and easy to understand. It is a simple definition of blood that would resonate with a casual reader. It has just enough information to captivate and at the same time not be info heavy. The lead also manages to give a brief overview of MOST of the article's main sections, but not all. (the "disorder" and "culture and religion" sections of the article, which are pretty significant, are not mentioned in the lead. There is no information in the lead that isn't contained elsewhere, and I think that it is just concise enough to be able to flow into the rest off the article

Content:

In terms of content, I find that 90% of what is on the page is relevant to the topic (blood), but I doubt the relevance of the "culture and religion" section of the article, where vampires, Jehovah's witnesses, and more are mentioned. I find that these subsections would belong more on the vampire or Jehovah's witnesses page, because they are not directly linked to blood. (They aren't something people would ask about when trying to learn about blood. All the content seems to be up to date, because on the talk page, I saw that the article has been reviewed multiple times since august 2022. I think that there is some information missing, for instance: blood-transmitted diseases (STDs), blood types, evolution of how blood was seen in medicine, etc.

Tone and Balance:

The article is neutral throughout, which was presumably not hard to do since it is not a debatable, political matter, or anything else that might involve multiple points of view: it is a scientific overview of what blood is. There is no "underrepresented point of view" or attempts at persuasion of the reader to make him believe in a certain opinion, because only scientific knowledge is presented.

Sources:

The source of the article are all well documented at the end. They are reliable and thorough: they come mostly from medical publications or handbooks written by experts or phds on the topic, ad leave no room for hesitastion. The sources are a mix of current and older sources, but the older ones are all coming from "reputable" medicine bibles that can be trusted. There may be some better sources that weren't used in this case, but in any case, the sources that ARE present are relevant and quality sources nonetheless. The links provided on the bottom of the page work.

Organization and writing quality:

The article is concise and decently organized, but I find that there is a lot of volume in the beginning sections, and it progressively gets reduced later in the article, most notably in the "culture and religion" section. It's easy to read, has no blatant grammatical or spelling errors, but does have that flaw of starting off really strong in terms of content and finishing with indirectly related--and limited--content.

Images and media:

The images provided help the reader understand the concepts explained, and are cited, but there is not enough. Blood and its physiology can be a vast, tough concept top understand, and there are just not enough images to help the reader throughout the article. It will be easy to lose him with endless explanation without proper imaging. The images do adhere to wikipedias regulations, but are just not laid out in a sufficiently appealing way, in my opinion, and are one of the weak points of this article.

Overall impressions:

This is a solid base of an article: it has key concepts and info, has a pretty decent structure, and has potential. However, blood is a very very vast topic, and this article has not yet finished figuring out how to present ALL information there is to know about blood and how to present it in a more appealing way. The articles strengths are the base topics and the ability to convey a basic understanding of how blood functions, but it does not go much beyond that. Also I find the "culture and religion" section lacking and moderately relevant.