User:Piglover19/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Humorism

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose the four humors because it was the most in intriguing to me and it's connection with medicine because I want to be a doctor when I grow up. My first impression was it has loads on information about the topic, more than I suspected it too have.

Evaluate the article
The article is a a really good article based on the evaluation system. First, it has a good lead section. The first sentence has an introductory sentence explaining the overarching goal of humorism and its use in medicine. It also is concise so it tells you what is going to be talked about in the article. It is important to emphasis that this type of medicine is not practiced today, but its overarching ideas were not completely thrown out in medicine. Some of its aspects still ties to newer medicine as well.

Secondly, the content is up to par. The topics discusses are all relevant to humorism, even going as far as expanding on lots of different pieces of knowledge associated with it. It is up to date, however descriptions could be added on how the four humors have influence medicine today, It mainly talks about the four humors as it was in the Ancient Greeks which is important but it vastly dies off by showing little to no influence. I believe explaining how it was helpful in evolving medicine is important because it did kickstart this topic.

Thirdly, the article has great tone. The article is neutral and is very detailed on why Hippocrates believed the four humors represented medical problems. The article was not using this as a way of persuasion, more of an informative example on why Hippocrates believed this to be true. Is some parts, it could be perceived as being persuasive so I think reiterating the believe of the humors through hippocrates eyes could help reestablish this. The article does a fantastic job of keeping it neutral. The only issue is most of the topics are over presented with the broader range topics compared to that of Empedocles model, however there is reference to learn more in different wikipedia articles.

The fourth criteria is covered with references. Most, if not all references come from great secondary resources such as journals and articles from JSTR or medical journals. All the links work besides a few that may need to be updated. The resources are up to date. Most of the articles are current in the sense of being published in the early to mid 2000. However, finding even newer articles or publications would not hurt.

The fifth criteria with organization and quality is clear and concise. Paragraphs are split appropriately and punctuation and sentence structure is good as well. However, the paragraphs due tend to get a little wordy and therefore hard to follow. Therefore editing out some unneeded or unimportant information would help fix this problem.

With the sixth criteria, there are images provided and have descriptions explaining each article. Since the humors deal with emotions as well, finding a colored picture if possible could be more beneficial than the black and white picture posted to really see the detail in the expressions to tie to the specific humor. There could also be more images added since the article is quite long.

The main discussions discussed in the talk discussion is the modification of external links as well as the diagrams and tables not fully representing the relationships that the four humors actually had. Many of these issues are quite small and can be fixed very quickly. It is part of Wikiprojects that hold it at a B rating and a Star rating.

Overall, I believe this article is a good source in explaining the type of medicine that was practiced with the ancient Greeks. It is very professional and hits most of the criteria to make a good article. One point of improvement is to make sure that the articles, resources, and pictures are aligning to what is being described as humorism. There were many discussions that took place that had contradicting information with the knowledge in the paragraphs to the pictures and diagrams. Overall, the article is well developed and gives great, accredited information that is backed up with professional resources.