User:WayDustin/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 it was interesting to the entire group.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The lead clearly states that the article is about clinical physiology and gives brief background details about topic. No, it never eludes to role and history which are two subsections. Yes, it includes techniques physiologists use. A bit overdone with information that does not even appear in the article.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

 * Guiding questions

Yes, the content gives information about clinical physiology although it's probably not what many are expecting when they search clinical physiology. The article was last edited 8 months ago which is a long time in terms of medical research. There may be some details missing, but not really anything that doesn't belong.


 * 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?

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions

The article is neutral. There are no claims that would represent any sort of bias. There are no viewpoints present, it is just factual information about the subject and includes examples of specific places. No, the article is straightforward information.


 * 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?

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions

The facts in the article are heavily hyper linked (presumably to sources). The sources are not very thorough, nor are they current. The links do work.


 * 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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

 * Guiding questions

It could be more concise and more clear. The grammar is not perfect, but no so bad you can't read it. It could be broken down into more subsections.


 * 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?

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions

The article does not include images.


 * 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?

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions

The general feeling in the talk page is that the topic is under-sourced and missing information. There is an agreement that the article needs more sources and overall effort. I do not think this article is rated. In class, we talked about how coffee affects the body, so we wanted to know who was doing the studies to determine that coffee affects the bodies.


 * 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?

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions

Outdated. The article has good links to other wikipedia articles. It needs more sources and additional information. This article is underdeveloped.


 * 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?

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: