User:Sleepychicken4938/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Exercise Physiology, Exercise physiology

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
(Briefly explain why you chose it, why it matters, and what your preliminary impression of it was.) I chose this article because I am an Exercise and Rehabilitation Major so almost all of my studies are related to Exercise Physiology. This topic matters because it is the study of physical exercise and can help get a better understand of an individual in many different health and/or sports areas. My preliminary impression was that the article is well written, it was a Wiki Education Foundation-supported article and it seems to have a good lead to the different topics discussed.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

This article from the beginning seemed very well thought out and like a promising article. The lead section of this article gives a good introduction to the article and the different sections in it. The lead is pretty simple and doesn't overcomplicate things or go into too many details.

The content of the article is good but I think it could use some improvement. I think the article contains most of the important information that is needed when discussing this topic. I think too much information was included in the section about education in exercise physiology. It was the second largest section of the article, but I feel like it is not as important as the other sections so it didn't need that much information. I think most of the content is up-to-date, but this may be untrue after looking at the talk page. There really is no conversation about equality or any specific ethnic group in this article.

This article seems mostly neutral or unbiased. A couple of sentences seem to be coming from a biased source, but most of the content was informational and unbiased. The sources are thorough, there were many from many different sources that varied from different countries also. Not all of the information/sources are current, only one of them seems to have been written within the past 10 years, and when it comes to some health topics, these could be information that is out of date. I think there are sources that are more accurate or current compared to some of the ones that were used in this article. I did click on a few of the links and they did work.

The organization of the article was good, the similar things were grouped together one section after another and the flow of the article was good. The article didn't have any grammatical or spelling errors. The article was fairly easy to read, it might be harder to read for a beginning or someone not in that field because of some of the medical terminology and medical knowledge but it was for the most part good.

There was very few images used in this article and I feel like the ones used weren't necessarily needed or there could have been better images selected. The images were briefly captioned but I feel like better images could've been used and captioned.

The talk page discussion was very interesting to read. There were a lot of comments about how some of the information as not the most current or accurate and some comments of some great things that were added to the article. This article is part of some WikiProjects and was part of Wikipedia Education Foundation Article.

My overall impressions of this article were that it is good but I think it could be more updated to use current information and more current articles. The article was well written and the format was good, I think it could just use some more images that are more related to the topic and I think the article is well-developed.