User:ReneeARag/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: Clinical physiology
 * I have chosen to evaluate this article because of my personal interest in the topic due to its relevance to the field I plan on pursuing. I also would like to further explore the topic itself.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

-Introductory sentence accurately and concisely describes what clinical physiology is (a medical discipline) along with where this specialty is practice. The Lead incorporates a description of what Clinical Physiology's role is in healthcare and how it benefits patients. It also provides a brief overview of the history of when it was established and where it stands today. Generally, the references below are provided as an external source to where the information was pulled from. Overall, the Lead could be more concise on expanding on the importance of clinical physiology and its relevance today in patient care.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

-Yes, the content is relevant to the topic because it ties into what clinical physiology is. The sources are roughly from 7-11 years ago and may be in need to updating. It does not include/address how clinical physiology affected underrepresented populations/topics.


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is unbiased and neutral in its presentation of information.


 * Is the article neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

There are external links provided. However, two sources require full citations and one of them is indicated as a dead link. One other link directs you to Google Translate and comes up as "Page Not Found."


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

The article is generally informative, but could expand on certain ideas that are brought up. There are some run-on sentences that could be broken up into individual ones. The article presents a section for the role and history of clinical physiology, but I suggest that an additional section be created and titled "Specialties" to indicate the types of doctors/clinicians that are involved in that field.


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

There are no images incorporated into this topic. I feel like it could greatly add on to people's understanding of the topic since this is the first time I have heard about this topic as well.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

Other editors point out how some information is lacking and could be expanded on the page, mostly in regards to clinical physiologists relevancy and importance in healthcare. Some also address how the history section could be expanded upon. There are links that need to be updated since the information provided are not accurate and two of them do not work.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Although it provides general information about the topic, the article is overall in need of improvement. More accurate sources need to be added to support the information provided in order for this page to be more reliable and valid, especially since two of the links don't work. I suggest that more information on the significance of clinical physiology in healthcare be provided. The article should also divide information into more sections to promote more organization (eg: "Specialities" to provide information on what types of doctors and healthcare professionals typically specialize in clinical physiology).


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths?
 * How can the article be improved?
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: Talk:Clinical physiology