User:Niahsymone05/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Medical laboratory - Wikipedia

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.)

The reason why I chose this article is because this is my current major and I want other readers to know the real meaning of medical laboratory as in what they to, how they do it and etc. It matters so that if the readers were curious about what exactly a medical laboratory is they can come on this site and have more insight about the topic. My impression of this article was actually good it does provide some good information, but it can be some more added or edited.

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 Section - The lead introduction does describe what the topic is about and also has a brief description on the major sections. The article does not contain information that's present in the article, lead is a concise article.

Content - All of the content isn't really relevant, there can be some more evidence added and also some get taken out. The content is not up to date which is kind of the reason on why the content isn't as relevant as it should be. There is some content that is missing from this article and some that can be taken out.

Tone and Balance - The article is neutral; this article is not biased it share multiple point of views towards the position. The points of views are very accurate when it described. The article is not persuasive towards one position it talks about multiple positions instead of one.

Sources and References - All of the facts are backed up by a lot of sources and reflects available information on all the topics that are mentioned. Most of the sources are not current and some are, the source is written in a diverse spectrum, and they also include historical induvial. The links are working, and some are peered reviewed.

Organization and Writing Quality -The article is very easy to read and very clear also easy to read. Doesn't have any misspelled words or errors. Could be organized better but does list all of the topics.

Images and Media - article does include images to help for a better description, and they are well captioned. They do not adhere copyright regulations.

Talk Page Discussion -The are not any discussions that I see about this topic. The article is rated B.

Overall Impressions - The status of the article is good; the strengths are it talks about everything you need to know and also give multiple point of views on the topic. The article isn't bad at all it is well developed, but more information could be added.