User:NickMcCo/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Clinical physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I wanted to evaluate Clinical physiology because it is a topic I am interested in especially as a student wanting to go into medical school and want to learn about different specialties in the US and around the world. I found this article to be really interesting since there are only a handful of countries that employ clinical physiology while it is a major topic or idea in medicine.

Evaluate the article
I believe the article did a great idea of introducing clinical physiology. The leading section does a good job of outlining what clinical psychology is and how it is applied in the medical field. The content is very thorough and explains clinical psychology as a field and its applications in medicine. It also further explains what clinical physiologists can specialize in. The article has a neutral tone in the way that there are not any biased points of view that would draw the conclusion that clinical physiology is the worst job in the world or that it is the most amazing job in the world. The resources used in Clinical physiology are legitimate sources for the most part, but there is one source that seemed a little unusual when just looking at the title of the reference article. The article title is "Clinical physiology: a successful academic and clinical discipline is threatened in Sweden". The organization in the article is done well. The text under each sub section or heading accurately depict the heading of the section. The writing quality is not great but good it is very concise and to the point, but I wish there was more to the article in the vocabulary and detail. There are no images, and I wish that the editors would provide a relevant image to help the article's readers better understand the topic. The talk page had questions about the legitimacy of the sources and the content used. There are some details in the article that the reference articles, but those were from older versions of the article. I thoroughly enjoyed the article while there may have been a few minor problems with it, but these problems did not take away from the over development of the article. I would say the article is well developed. The improvements I would suggest would to incorporate more references to increase the number of talking points that the article has so the audience can have even more knowledge on the topic while keeping the article from overwhelming the user with information on clinical physiology.