User:Pickett261/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
( Clinical physiology - Wikipedia)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because it relates to what I'm studying for school. It matters because physiology is just as important as physical health. My preliminary impression was the article would be difficult for someone who wasn't familiar with medical terminology.

Evaluate the article
The article includes an introductory sentence that concisely describes the topic of the article. The article includes a lead description of the topic included in the article. The lead does not include unpresented information. The lead concise is overly detailed in my opinion.

Most of the article's content is relevant to the topic. The content used dates from 2008. There is some content missing, a better description of what clinical physiology is should be included.

The article is neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. There are no viewpoints that are overrepresented. The article doesn't persuade the reader in any favor.

I'd say most of the information is backed up by secondary sources. The sources are thorough. The source isn't that current. I think there are definitely better and more current sources available.

I think the article could be written better for more readers to understand. I didn't find any grammar errors in the text. I think the article could be organized a little better to understand easier. There are no images in the article.

My overall impression is that the article has important information but could be difficult for someone not familiar with medical terminology to understand this article. There are a lot of medical terms used in this article and the information isn't current to today's date.