User:Msouza224/sandbox: Difference between revisions
←Created page with '{{User sandbox}} <!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> Article Evaluation Club Foot The second introduction paragraph could use a citation for the statistics on birth...' |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Club Foot |
Club Foot |
||
1) Everything in the article seems relevant. |
|||
2) The article is fairly neutral although, there are several sections in need of citations. |
|||
3) The French method could be represented with more details. |
|||
3) The citations seem to work and support the source and claims of the article. |
|||
4) It is questionable where some of the facts came from due to a lack of citations associated with them. The citations that I checked appeared to be peer reviewed and neutral. |
|||
5) Many of the sources are over 10 years old and could potentially be out of date if more current literature exists. |
|||
6) There are conversations about the effectiveness of some of the treatments and edits about grammar and syntax within the article. |
|||
The second introduction paragraph could use a citation for the statistics on birth ratio of club foot. The first paragraph of genetics is vague citing :most studies". More information on which studies could be helpful. I agree that several more citations are needed throughout the body of the genetics section.[[User:Msouza224|Msouza224]] ([[User talk:Msouza224|talk]]) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
The second introduction paragraph could use a citation for the statistics on birth ratio of club foot. The first paragraph of genetics is vague citing :most studies". More information on which studies could be helpful. I agree that several more citations are needed throughout the body of the genetics section.[[User:Msouza224|Msouza224]] ([[User talk:Msouza224|talk]]) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 20:42, 18 September 2017
Article Evaluation
Club Foot 1) Everything in the article seems relevant. 2) The article is fairly neutral although, there are several sections in need of citations. 3) The French method could be represented with more details. 3) The citations seem to work and support the source and claims of the article. 4) It is questionable where some of the facts came from due to a lack of citations associated with them. The citations that I checked appeared to be peer reviewed and neutral. 5) Many of the sources are over 10 years old and could potentially be out of date if more current literature exists. 6) There are conversations about the effectiveness of some of the treatments and edits about grammar and syntax within the article.
The second introduction paragraph could use a citation for the statistics on birth ratio of club foot. The first paragraph of genetics is vague citing :most studies". More information on which studies could be helpful. I agree that several more citations are needed throughout the body of the genetics section.Msouza224 (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)