User:StudentdocEB/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Splenogonadal fusion

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have previously encountered this rare pathology in clinical practice. There is still question of to how the pathology arises, and I noticed the current wikipedia page is very short and does not include much about possible causes, diagnostic tools, or treatment options. My first impression was that the page had basic information with limited references.

Lead section
The lead section includes an introductory sentence that is clear, but it lacks a description of the major sections. There is only one section currently in this short Wikipedia article. Ways where it can be improved is expanding on ideas in the lead article and breaking down the article into further sections. It is concise, but maybe lacking detail.

Content
The article content is relevant to the topic, but all the information is presented in the lead section. There are no breakdown sections to expand on certain aspect it talks about including diagnosis and the associated conditions. The information may not be the most up to date, as many of the sources are approaching 10 years old. The content that is missing may include treatment options or the surgical approach to removing the neoplasm. There isn't any addressing of equity gaps or historically underrepresented topics.

Tone and Balance
The article is neutral and emphasizes the general physician desire to preserve the testicle and avoid orchiectomy when possible. It may be beneficial to add to the article to describe when orchiectomy may in fact be necessary to balance the description of possible outcomes. There are not claims that seem biased or any particular persuasions.

Sources and References
Since most of the published work on Splenogonadal fusion is from case reports, the sources are widely from medical journals including Urology or pediatric radiology. It reflects the broadness of case reports, but is lacking in current sources that may include more recent information on the pathology. There are a wide variety of authors and the sources range from different journals. There may be better sources available that are more up-to-date. The links included in the references do appear to be functional.

Organization and writing quality
The article is overall well-written. It Is very concise, but as mentioned above, may be overly concise. I did not identify any grammatical or spelling errors. The article largely lacks organization and is not broken into sections to reflect the major points of the topics. I propose adding additional sections that may include: Etiology, epidemiology, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment.

Images and Media

 * There is only one image included that is well captioned. It adheres to copyright regulations and includes its sources from an article published in the Journal of Urology. It is well-captioned. Different views of the image may increase the visual appeal and understanding of its presentation.

Talk page discussion
There was issue with a fact being tagged as dubious that was brought up in 2015. Though, there were no further replies about why the dubious tag was placed on a sentence of the article.

Overall impressions

 * The article is rated as start-class on the quality scale and as low importance. It has a related page, accessory spleens, which is rated as mid-importance. The strengths of the article includes a basic introduction that can be learned from the article within minute, but it can be improved by expanding on many of the topics in the introduction paragraph. It can also be improved by providing the link between the accessory spleen page. I think the page is underdeveloped overall.