User:Yangk59/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Cholestasis

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.)

After taking second year anatomy, our group was interested in evaluating articles that had something to do with organ systems. After some research, we settled on learning more about liver diseases. One of the topics we discussed was looking at complications arising from gallstones. In our investigation, we came across cholestasis as a common symptom and noted that the article on the topic lacked information. As such, we chose to evaluate this article as it lacked many key elements of a ‘good’ Wikipedia article.

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.)

To begin, the lead section of the article provides a good overview of the main topic and a general breakdown of the various causes of cholestasis. However, it does not detail the major sections of the article, which would have been helpful to add. With the rest of the article, most of the information provided is quite relevant. In the mechanism section, however, there is a deep elaboration about how bile is produced and secreted. This information is not connected to the overarching topic of cholestasis (stoppage of the flow of bile). As such, this information is distracting from the broader concept. It would be helpful if more of the paragraphs were tied to the main theme of the article rather than mentioned in a haphazard fashion.

In terms of content, most of the information provided is up to date. Despite this, there is a lot of information that could be added. In 2020 alone, over a hundred articles on cholestasis were published. It would be helpful if the article incorporated more recent literature and discussed the various types of cholestasis. For e.g., there is no detail provided on the mechanism of drug induced cholestasis vs. anatomical causes of cholestasis. Moreover, there is a single reference to a book made in the article. Although the citation does in fact support the claims made in the article, it would be beneficial to add more resources. There are also multiple instances where facts are not cited or left as ‘citation needed’ comments.

Behind the scenes, there are very few conversations on the topic. The last comment-which was from 2013-highlighted the importance of discussing metabolic cholestasis rather than just obstructive cholestasis. Apart from this, there is no significant conversation about the topic in the talk page. This article is part of WikiProject Medicine/Gastroenterology/Hematology-oncology and is rated as start-class, mid importance.

Regarding bias, the article cites a single book from a reputable publisher. There does not seem to be a particular viewpoint which is overrepresented. However, as mentioned earlier, it would be helpful to include more citations to more robustly support some of the claims made in the article.

The article is well written in a clear and engaging format. However, the layout could be improved by adding more images. For e.g., when discussing obstructive cholestasis, it would be helpful to have a diagram illustrating bile flow in the liver and highlighting where common blockages occur. The only image listed on the article currently is captioned appropriately and relevant to the topic.

Overall, this article can be improved in a number of ways. Currently, the article is good in that it summarizes the topic in the lead section and provides a rough breakdown of the various causes of cholestasis. However, it can be improved by listing more recent resources, expanding on the causes and mechanisms of cholestasis, and providing more media sources. The article in its current state is underdeveloped.