User:ThatIndividual99/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.


 * Clinical Physiology (Clinical physiology)
 * I find medicine interesting so I assumed this would be a somewhat interesting read, and interesting for me to evaluate.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * This sentence does exist, as the first sentence elaborated on possible uses of the term and the second sentence broadly defines what clinical physiology is and how its used.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is a brief overview of the role clinical physiology plays in medicine, but no overview of its history. The majority of the lead is elaborating on on what clinical physiologists do.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is overly detailed, as it includes information that should comprise of its a own subsection and be replaced with an overview of the other subsection (history) that was not mentioned at all.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Content evaluation
The overall topic of the article is very general, and as a result, the information presented is very general as well. The article does not appear to be up to date, as the article concerns medicine and any medical sources are considered outdated after 5 years of publication because of the rapid advancement of the field. However, the content that is presented is accurate, and pertains to the topic at hand.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article is presented in a neutral fashion and is strictly informational on what clinical physiologists are, and what they do.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Sources and references evaluation
Not all the information presented is linked to sources, and the sources that are included are outdated by current medical literary standards. The sources are mainly academic research articles which are extremely thorough, and are presented from an array of different authors.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article is well written, in the proper formal and neutral tone, and is very easy to read.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images present in the article

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Talk page evaluation
There does not appear to be a collaborative discussion concerning editing the article, instead the talk section comprises almost exclusively of critiques to the article, and what the writers noticed was missing and think should be added. Many of the opinions and concerns expressed in the talk section were also expressed in this evaluation demonstrating that those who left the comments did not make the changes they suggested.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * 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?

Overall evaluation
This article overall, while having great potential, is greatly under sourced and missing pertinent information to the topic. The entire history section does not include one citation and the information in the “Role” section of the article is very abbreviated and vague.

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: