User:Samelise24/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: (link) Clinical physiology
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. Because our group was interested in the topic.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The article does include what clinical psychology is in the Lead
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Includes definition that is not explained in contents
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is overly detailed because it uses the correct language as well as medical jargon.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes because it gives history about the topic, however does not describe much about what the topic is.
 * Is the content up-to-date? No, last edited 8 months ago which is long time in terms of the medical research
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is content missing, but none that does not belong.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral? Yes because only gives information and not opinions.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, includes hyperlinks
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Includes hyperlinks, but not thorough
 * Are the sources current? Not current, last edit in December of 2019
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Links do work

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Could be more concise and clear, not easy to read because uses medical jargon.
 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? yes
 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A because no images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A because no images

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Needs updating on medical jargon and new medical procedures, more detailed explanations
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Not rated
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? Talks less formally

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?
 * What are the article's strengths? In Lead explains topics and uses appropriate language
 * How can the article be improved? Give more details, includes images
 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Underdeveloped

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: