User:Zitro2605/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 (Clinical physiology)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.
 * I chose this article because I took a physiology class last semester and I was very interested by it so I decided to pick an article related to that field.

Lead

 * Guiding questions

The Lead includes an introductory sentence that is a but concise, but then it goes very specific in talking about the European countries in which they practice clinical physiology. The Lead does include a brief description of the article's major sections. The Lead talks about subjects such as the definition of what clinical physiology is, the role that it involves and its history. The Lead is very concise throughout the paper, the only part in which the Lead may have been a bit overly detailed is in the introductory paragraph in which the Lead explains all the different physiological activities that occur.


 * 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

The article's content is relevant to the topic since it explains what clinical physiology is and it even gives a bit of history and its roles around different professions. The content is a bit outdated since the last information published was in 2015. With all the technological advances and discoveries in the science field, I believe now would be a good time to try to keep the article up-to-date. I think there is content missing such as different methods and practices in which clinical physiology is useful.


 * 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 not neutral since it focuses a lot on the clinical physiology in Europe, without portraying a worldwide view on how clinical physiology is used around the world. The aren't any claims that appear biased, but most of the information where the references come from and for explaining the roles are sources from the UK. This makes the article look very overrepresented on Europe, especially on the UK and the nordic countries. The article tries to highlight the importance of clinical physiology in those countries and does not focus in other places such as America, Asia and Africa.


 * 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

There is some information posted that is not backed up by sources. For example, the article doesn't state where the information about the first clinical physiology came from. Some of the sources reflect the available literature on the topic but others just send you to the webpage home and it's hard to find the topics.The sources seem to be from another language and most of the links don't 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

The article is well written, the wording was very easy and that helped in understanding the topic. The article didn't had any grammatical or spelling errors but they kept capitalizing "Clinical Physiology", which I believe it made the sentences look a bit disorganized. Overall, he article is well-organized and it broke down each section pretty well and every paragraph was well organized and contained the necessary information.


 * 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

Most of the conversations in the talk page are critical reviews on how to improve the page. It also has a lot of questions asking about different sources and where did they find the information since the links don't work. The article is not not rated and it is not part of any WikiProject. Wikipedia discusses this topic way more critical since it tries to improve the page to the best version possible so that the reader can get all the necessary information in one page.


 * 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

The article's status is good since it contains very good information about what is clinical physiology and its history. The article's strengths are the wording and information about the different roles and in explaining what clinical physiology is. The article can be improved by using stronger resources, talk more about the clinical physiology in other countries and continents and providing more information about its history and how it is used now in present day. I think the article is a bit underdeveloped. It needs to add more information in certain areas.


 * 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: