User talk:Bkarnkowska/Evaluate an Article

Lead Section: This section is very long and difficult to follow. It mixes both historical and technical aspects of the procedure. It uses technical terms and fails to lead convey a general understanding of the purpose of the procedure. The lead section could also benefit from a few more credible sources; the first citation does not appear until half-way into the paragraph. Content: Content is good, but again could benefit from reorganization and elimination of medical jargon. I would like to add to the “Process” section given that it fails to paint a clear picture of what is going on during the procedure. Additionally, this section is in dire need of credible sources. Tone and Balance: The article does not appear to have a biased opinion or unbalanced tone. Sources and Citations: In total there are only 8 citations for this article and most of the are older. The article would benefit from a healthy mix of articles that support the description of the procedure and any newer research (conducted within the last 5 years) which highlights risk factors affecting the success and prognosis of the Norwood procedure. Although each paragraph has a citation, the article would reach more credibility with multiple sources all in support of the facts. A few of the sources are newer and could be left in the article. Organization and Writing Quality: Organization is poor and needs improvement. Language could also be improved and simplified. There is a lot of medical jargon which makes it a bothersome read; it adds to the already difficult to understand topic Images and Media: There are two images, and both are great. They perfectly demonstrate how HLHS presents at birth and how it is corrected during the Norwood procedure. Talk Page: There are no conversations on the talk page. The article is of high importance on the project’s importance scale. It is also a Start-Class on the quality scale and marked as Mid-importance. Lastly, the article is part of the WikiProject Medicine and requires use of high-quality medical sources. Overall: This is a good start to the article. There will be a lot of restructuring, starting with the leading paragraph, and followed by the table of contents which will include “Indications”, “Procedure” with subdivisions into multiple steps and “Aftermath and Prognosis”. The good part of this article is that it already has great information that must be reorganized and polished. Medical jargon will be substituted with easy-to-understand terms; missing citations will be added. When these points are addressed, I hope to add more sections if there is more missing information. Links to other wikiepdia pages will be added as well.