User:Myelinav/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
(Alternative medicine)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(I chose this page since the field of Alternative Medicine is interesting in the scope of Pharmacology since many of these preactices are not biologically sound or unproven. Many consumers are interested in al medicine and it is important that the information promotes safe "alternatives." My initial iimpression was that the page was well done and did actually present the topic in an unbiased manner. )

Evaluate the article
(The article does open with a strong lead sentence that is clear and concise. Everything mentioned in the lead appears to be mentioned in the article. The lead section is a bit wordy and could perhaps be shortened, though the major sections are addressed. There is a slight overdetailing in the lead section.

The content of the article is very detailed. There is a lof of information on one page and while the information is under appropriate headers, this is slightly overwhelming to the reader. Perhaps the page could be split up. The information appears to be up to date though the content seems partial against the idea of alt medicine.

The tone of the article is skewed to the idea that alternative medicine is not "real." there seems to be more focus on the issues and problems assocaited with alt medicine and very little on possible benefits.

The sources do seem diverse and the links I selected, do work. Many of the sources I selected, are peer reviewed academic journals.

The talk page reveals that many people have issues with the page and its impartialilty. One user called this piece a "unscientific opinion piece." Many readers take issue with this page and wikipedia has listed it as controversial and in serious dispute. This page is part of many wikiprojects.

Why is there not a section on benefits of alternative medicine?

~ )