User:Rebjmcd/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I have chosen this article because I enjoy learning about nephrology and I want to use this article as an opportunity to learn more about nephrology. This article is relevant because nephritic and nephrotic disease processes are often confused among medical students. I hope to develop this article into a reliable source for students to learn specifically about mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis without confusing it with other nephritic syndromes. My preliminary impression of the article is that it is under developed in all sections and can be better organized with more in depth and relevant information.

Evaluate the article
Lead section:

The lead section briefly defines MPGN, though the definition is quite truncated. The section contains research findings that are inappropriate for this section and provides its classification by the WHO, both of which are irrelevant in this section by themselves and are not discussed further in the article. The lead section does not provide an overview of the article and it is not detailed.

Content:

The content of the article is brief and is not structured appropriately. The sections established are a good starting point (Mechanism, Diagnosis, Treatment), though they are all underdeveloped and sections such as Presentation and Prognosis would be beneficial.

Tone and Balance:

The article presents the information in an unbiased manner. The article does not attempt to sway the reader and does not present fringe beliefs or unsupported view points.

Sources and References:

The article has 4 references. Two are from eliable textbooks. One is from an independent study in a reliable journal and one is from an online medical dictionary. Not all of the content in the article is cited properly. The sources are not as up to date as would be preferred. The links are currently working.

Organization and Writing Quality:

The organization has a good foundation, though, as state above, more organization will be beneficial to the article. The writing quality is fair. The writing quality can be improved throughout the article.

Images and Media:

The one image in the article is helpful in understanding the location of MSPGN. However, the image is not captioned or cited well.

Talk Page Discussion:

There are no current talk page discussions. The article is rated as stub-class and mid-importance. It is supported by the Nephrology task force.

Overall impressions:

The article is, overall, a good starting point for this topic. The foundation is rather strong and will serve as a good branching point for further development. The article will be improved with increased organization and structure, as well as more detailed and relevant content from reliable and up to date sources.