User:Mroma7/sandbox

Article Evaluation

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_physiology Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? for the most part everything is related to the topic at some points it does get off topic. there were a couple distractions for me.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added? nothing is out of date maybe a little more could be added

What else could be improved? it could be more clear it did not make to much sense to me.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? This article is pretty neutral and there is no biased opinion towards one position

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? yes the whole viewpoint on the topic seems a bit off and underrepresented.

Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? the first link did not work it brought me to google translate for some odd reason. the source does support the claims.

Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? the facts are backed up with reliable sources that are not biased. i looked through the websites and they seemed pretty good and reliable

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? there are no conversations behind the scenes to represent this topic

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? this article is not apart of any wikiprojects but i would not rate it high because i thought it was unclear

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? we havent talked about it in class