User:NeuroResident/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cauda equina syndrome

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
It is an important topic in neurology, currently rated as a C with Low importance by the neurology task force.

Evaluate the article
Lead Section: The introductory sentence is clear and details the problem of CES. The lead does not include a brief description of the articles major sections, and does have information not mentioned elsewhere such as the incidence of CES. It is overall concise and well-written.

Content: The article's content is relevant to the topic, though not fully up to date with most guidelines and most sources are about a decade old. Most recent clinical guidelines could be incorporated into the article. The heading "Society and Culture" does not fit the content of the section, as it discusses predominantly cost and hospitalization days. This article does not address an underrepresented population or equity gap.

Tone: From a tone perspective, the article is predominantly neutral and does not argue for a specific perspective or viewpoint.

Sources and references: The sources represent an adequate breadth of secondary information though as mentioned are out of date. Very few sources are from the last 3-5 years. The links for sources do work appropriately.

Organization and Writing Quality: The article is predominantly well written, however certain sections don't quite fit with the organization. For example, the society and culture section and the in animals sections both feel randomly added to the end of the article. No obvious spelling or grammar issues are present.

Images and Media: The society and culture tab contains an image relating to finances and hospital course of CES rather than society and culture. Captions accurately describe the images. Images adhere to wikipedia's image copyright rules and are laid out in a visually appealing manner.

Talk page: There was a discussion that was held about the use of an image suggesting certain exercises seeming like a how-to on original research, which was ultimately removed from the article.

Overall: The article contains a lot of useful information, but is crude in it's organization and ease of use. The sections do not flow well, especially towards the end of the article, and several sources are quite old and could use updating. I would say the article is currently underdeveloped and could use: 1) more up to date sources, 2) clearer organization, and 3) more accurate headings.