User:MULuna/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article[edit]

This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.

Name of article: (Clinical physiology)
Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate. I chose this article to evaluate because it is a topic that interests me and that goes with my major. I thought it would be interesting to read a little more about the clinical aspect of physiology.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, there are the main details one should know about the topic as well as main points about the definition and treatment options.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, there is a context section right below the introduction to allow reader to jump to a desired section.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No it doesn't.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- I thinks its concise with the important information necessary. Its neither including too much or too little.

Is the article's content relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the article does a nice job staying on topic and only including things relevant to it.
Is the content up-to-date?
- For the most part it seems okay for the information it has, but it could have more added for recent years.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- No all the content there does belong, but there could me more that can be added.

Is the article neutral?
- Yes, the article is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No everything seems to be neutral taking no sides.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- No they were all represented fair and equally.
Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the article is neutral taking no good or bad sides.

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- Yes, most of them were backed up by Wikipedia sources and only some other sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, they give a lot more information on the general topics that are present.
Are the sources current?
- Yes most seemed to be current.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- Yes the linked worked.

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes the article is easy to follow.
Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- No, there's no errors that I found
Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes there are different sections, but more information could be added.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- No there are not images.
Are images well-captioned?
- No images used.
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- No images used.
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
- No images used.

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
- There aren't a lot of conversations on this page, just a few questions of information and some people saying it needs more information comparing clinical physiology to other health related jobs.
How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
- This article seems to be a start since more information could be added and this was part of Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment this past year.
How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
- This was a shorter article that could use more information so it is simpler that what we've talked about in class.

What is the article's overall status?
- Overall the article seems like a start and could become better.
What are the article's strengths?
- This article does a good job in giving the background and history of the topic.
How can the article be improved?
- This article could you more sources and could include more information in regards to other medical aspects. Also pictures could help make the article better.
How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?
- The article is not poorly developed but it also doesn't seem complete to the most it can be so underdeveloped.

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 — ~~~~