User:Tacobellbeanburrito/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cholecystostomy

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I'm interested in general surgery. I was just browsing through some surgery topics when I saw that cholecystostomy only has a stubs page. I want to add more information to that page.

Evaluate the article
This is a stubs article with only 1 paragraph and no pictures.

Lead Section


 * 1) includes an introductory sentence, describes the topic but could be written better
 * 2) no major sections in the article --> no description in the lead
 * 3) not enough no extra information inlcuded in the lead that is not present in the article
 * 4) lead is short, and concise. however, I think the lead needs more information as well as better organization

Content


 * 1) the content is relevant to the topic. not enough content though
 * 2) the content only provides a brief summary and is up-to-date with the current knowledge about the topic
 * 3) there is a lot of content that is missing (history, indications, how to perform the procedure, etc.)
 * 4) this article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and is not related to historically underrepresented populations or topics

Tone and Balance


 * 1) article is neutral
 * 2) no claims that appear to be heavily biased
 * 3) not enough viewpoints to over- or under-represent
 * 4) doesn't include any minority or fringe viewpoints
 * 5) doesn't attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position

Sources and References


 * 1) all facts are backed by a second source of information
 * 2) the sources provide references to the stated facts in the article but do not reflect the available literature on the topics
 * 3) some sources are from over a hundred years ago while others are more recent.
 * 4) there are only 4-5 listed authors on the sources. didn't seen an effort to include historically marginalized individuals where possible
 * 5) the links
 * 6) all of the references in this article seem to be from reputable sources. however, there are more comprehensive sources that include more information about the topic
 * 7) the links work

Organization and writing quality


 * 1) the article is well-written. easy to read, concise
 * 2) no overt grammatical or spelling errors
 * 3) not well organized. the article doesn't have distinct sections, and doesn't have good flow while presenting the information

Images and Media


 * 1) no images in the article

Talk page discussion


 * 1) no conversation on the talk page
 * 2) rated as low-importance, part of WikiProjects Medicine
 * 3) no discussion on this topic yet

Overall Impression


 * 1) status: stub
 * 2) strengths: has basic information about the topic
 * 3) areas of improvement: more information, more organized sections
 * 4) poorly developed (still a stubs page)